Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969

Could I borrow those eyeballs once more?

Be my guest.

–EEng

• C._W._Gilmore (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)
• Newwikiaccount666 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) (likely sock)

User:C. W. Gilmore has been making a series of edits to Ridgefield, WA, repeatedly re-introducing false information, accusing other writers of canvassing, violating BRD, and, in my opinion, trying to coatrack the article to be an offshoot of Removal_of_Confederate monuments and memorials. There also may be some socking; this low-output, interestingly named, single purpose account appears to share writing style with him. Anmccaff (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Returning the article to it's original condition while the section in RFC discussion[1], appears to be the issue for Anmccaff as they have repeated attempted to delete the entire section.[2][3] This is very disruptive.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it's repeatedly re-introducing false information, accusing other writers of canvassing, violating BRD, and, in my opinion, trying to coatrack the article to be an offshoot of Removal_of_Confederate monuments and memorials. There also may be some socking, as seen 4, 5 lines above. Anmccaff (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The section before it was repeatedly deleted [4] is what I was attempting to maintain while the RFC discussion proceeds. It is Anmccaff, who is being disruptive and deleting the section in some kind of edit war.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I also asked Anmccaff to specify sight anything I posted that might be in error and all I got as response was a threat of ANI action. This is most troubling and non-productive.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

And, not surprisingly, we have a repeated accusation of canvassing, I'm curious whether by cavalry [brought] in from as far away as Swastika, Ontario he means User:Cullen328 or User:Kleuske this time. Anmccaff (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to Anmccaff.[5] You and the others had no interest in this article, until John from Idegon pointed you in it's direction. You don't need to be so hostile, I'm an honest contributor and no 'sock puppet'; just ask and I will be happy to clarify any question you have. I do however, object strongly to your false accretions, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I dunno if that's mendacity or conveniently poor memory on your part, but I was involved in a conversation with you here, about five days prior. That's on the same page, with you directly responding to me. More importantly, JfI and were discussing the larger problem of POV-pushers circumventing restrictions on political topics by coatracking them on other articles, viz:

Anmccaff, do you have any idea if the arb American Politics discretionary sanctions decisions apply to political content in what should be non political articles? John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you are on to something here. When the subject is pretty close to an obvious political subject, it's gonna get noticed and brought up, but if, say, folks keep adding borderline stuff to Swastika, Ontario "because bacon Hitler!", and so forth, it's not going to be seen that way. I don't think there is any formal policy that covers this. Anmccaff (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

When JfI mentioned It's gone to RfC now, I'd assumed "it" was a request for clarification of whether the arb American Politics discretionary sanctions decisions apply to political content in what should be non political articles?. We had already discussed your coatracking days earlier, remember. Anmccaff (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I was only mentioning that JfI, you and others do a great job tag-teaming to push you POV; from Swastika, Ontario to Ridgefield, Washington. The cavalry was called and you did a great job responding, thus the natives from the area, like myself, have no chance. Great work to you and your friends. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not close friends with anyone involved, although I try to be friendly with everyone. I just took a look when the matter was brought up here, and commented on what I saw as foolishness. The only POV that I push is that we should all work together to build a better encyclopedia. The notion that "natives from the area" ought to have some special status when editing articles about cities and towns is erroneous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A blimp in the news cycle

–EEng

The local sources have know that this is not just a blimp blip in the news cycle, the issues surrounding the Jefferson Davis Highway markers began in 1998 with the Vancouver city council, when they removed the stone. It again became an issue in 2001, and again in 2006 when it was removed from public land for the last time. Thus the park was built in 2007 for the purpose of displaying the marker and for the education of confederate heritage. Those of us close to it have seen it play out in the local media: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]http://www.kptv.com/story/36153519/some-calling-for-removal-of-confederate-flag-at-ridgefield-park][13][14][15][16][17][18]. The problem is when those that do not familiarize themselves with these local issues, take over control of wiki to the point of whitewashing them out of the local history. None of this was directed at you, Cullen³²⁸, only those that are pushing their agenda from outside the area that have not educated themselves to this, almost 30yr issues in Southwestern Washington. Ridgefield city government has asked the county historical society to remove the stone markers just this year, but all this started in 1939. I do appreciate that you, Cullen328, have an opinion and I respect it, and I also know that these over editors will get there way with this site as they are in force. So it will be, but I do object most strongly to the false allegations of Anmccaff, that I am someone's sock puppet, or a single purpose account (SPA) or that my account name, which is my name, is some how questionable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the questionable assertion that it's just then pointy-headed outsider troublemakers causing the problems at your lunchcounter town, I am not saying that you are a sock-puppet, I'm saying it looks like you use them. Any objection to a checkuser looking at the edits in question? Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"There also may be some socking; this low-output, interestingly named, single purpose account appears to share writing style with him. Anmccaff" -"I am not saying that you are a sock-puppet, I'm saying it looks like you use them. Any objection to a checkuser looking at the edits in question? Anmccaff"

Your spurius allegations are what I object to and consider an intimidating tactic that goes against the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and are not worthy of response. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: Either file an SPI or drop the allegations of sockpuppetry. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- I think this has disagreement been resolved via the RfC. Separately, I invited C. W. Gilmore to create a stand-alone article on the subject, which they are in the process of doing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but Anmccaff is not through with me as he has begun a 'sockpuppet' investigation.here I do hope that they will leave me alone after this, but I get the feeling, that's not their style. This really does make for a hostile environment to try and contribute. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• For context, you may want to see that this RfC was created at my advice at the Teahouse, see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_687#Changes_to_article_and_consensus.2C_how_long_should_a_discussion_stay_open_on_Talk_page.3F. Since then, CWG has started two related threads on my talk page.

AFAICT none of this is improper, but if CWG's conduct in that RfC comes under consideration, the background may matter. I will not follow this, ping me if further input is needed. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

Thanks, but Anmccaff is searching for anything to pin on me, and has been going through my old posts back to 2011 as well as starting a 'sockpuppet' or 'meatpuppet' investigation into me, along with going around to that Administrator's TP to besmirch my name with accusations. [19] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

500/30 ARBPIA rule

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [20] - this user has evaded the 500/30 rule on ARBPIA articles by opening an account 30 days ago and then making 500 edits to their own user page. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indef. "I was just testing out different fonts and such" yeah, sure. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That...takes a bit of gumption, to think 500 sandbox edits would stand. ValarianB (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Now CU blocked. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dutchy85's film stubs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While wading through stubs today, I've noticed huge numbers of sub-stubs being created over the past month by Dutchy85, most of which are sourced only to IMDB. Obviously, as they stand these are all technically non-compliant, and there are so many of them that it's impractical to do the full WP:BEFORE treatment on all of them—however, given that the films in question almost certainly do exist, the bulk deletion nomination I'd usually perform in these circumstances would seem a bit counterproductive since at some point they'd all need to be re-created with proper sourcing. Can I get some other peoples' thoughts on whether we ought to be applying the letter of the law in these circumstances, or quietly turning a blind eye? (Note: while I'll obviously give D85 the correct ANI notification, I've not given the usual {{uw-unsourced1}} or similar; this is someone with 50,000 edits, not a newbie who doesn't understand Wikipedia policy.) ‑ Iridescent 17:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you tag them with a request for a non-IMDB source? Abyssal (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I have considerably better things to do with my life than wade through well over 500 articles adding tags, particularly if there's consensus that these pages shouldn't be deleted. ‑ Iridescent 18:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I meant with a bot or something automated. Abyssal (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescent... to explain what I've been doing, is usually I'll go through a filmmaker's filmography, and note what films there are no wikipedia pages up for. I do up a quick wikipedia page for the film entry (I feel all theatrically released feature films deserve a page especially if they have notable talent in it). I always try to give at least two sources, normally IMDB and TCM but also at times BFI. Then I go back later and try to flesh out the article with references to newspaper articles... by which time often people in the wikipedia community are kind enough to have added contributions to the entries to help out. Unfortunately some times it takes me longer to get back to the entries than I would like. I don't mean to contravene any policy - certainly I don't do it consciously - I'm just keen for Wikipedia to be as comprehensive as possible when it comes to covering cinema. It all comes from a good place. But absolutely all the films do exist. Dutchy85 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This same issue with this user has come up before, specifically at the Film Project in June 2016. This was their talkpage (note the warnings, prods, etc), before they cleared it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Didn't mean to cause any offence. I might hop off editing for a while. Apologies for causing any extra work it was not my intention. I feel every feature film released theatrically is inherently notable.Dutchy85 (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

How about instead of "hopping off", you follow up on the suggestion above and tag all of your sub-stub film articles which rely solely on IMDB as a source as needing a non-IMDB source? Since you created them, it's unreasonable for you to make someone else fix your errors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Point taken Dutchy85 (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• I looked at one of these articles – The Gallant Blade. It is listed in lots of books and I had no difficulty finding a substantial source. The relevant policy seems to be WP:IMPERFECT, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." So, as this seems to be a valid topic, we should welcome it. No admin action seems necessary or appropriate here and and so this matter seems to belong at a relevant project like Wikipedia:WikiProject Film rather than ANI. Andrew D. (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's a valid topic, and there's plenty of sources out there to expand it. The issue is that it was left in this unsourced state on 8 October and then pretty much abandonded, until expanded by yourself (thanks BTW). Now if it was a one-off from a new editor who doesn't know the ins-and-outs of WP:RS, building articles, etc, then we'd be dropping helpful notes on their talkpage and helping them to write a better (sourced) article. But this isn't that scenario. There are dozens, if not hundreds of these articles created by the same (experienced) user with nothing more than an external link. And looking at the version from 8th October, even the basic categories are not correct (no country, wrong year cat, etc). It's not the best use of time to clean up all this mess. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• The Gallant Blade was given an excellent reference by Dutchy85 – TCM, which is based on Leonard Maltin's Classic Movie Guide and contains copious details. He should perhaps have listed this as a general reference rather than an external link but that's no big deal and certainly no reason for admin sanctions. Andrew D. (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Vishnuvardhana

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Vishnuvardhana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Vishnuvardhana is a reasonably new user who has mainly edited articles on Indian films and Indian actors/actresses. Unfortunately, they're turning into a problematic editor, linking to copyright infringement [21][22], making unsourced changes with particular POV [23][24][25], unsourced changes with BLP issues [26][27][28], removing sourced information [29][30] and changing sourced information [31]. More in their contribution list.

They've gotten various warnings on their talk page and I've left a couple of personalized messages directly asking them for a response to discuss the concerns that have been raised. They haven't responded to anything. At this point, I think at a minimum they need a block to force discussion. Review of their edits, suggestions and possible admin action would be appreciated. Ravensfire (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User notified here. Ravensfire (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--And what the heck does he try to say through this edit?Also see the edit summary at this edit.Enough grounds for a block.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Bleh - that was supposed to be included as "seriously creepy edit". Feels like something from a middle-school boy, but creepy. Ravensfire (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I do whatever I want

I have seen so many notifications about Bollywood movies editing and yes I do it and I will do whatever I want fuck urself I love Sonakshi Sinha and want her so get lost u stupid idiot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnuvardhana (talk • contribs) 08:05 08 November 2017 (UTC)

(moved comment here from bottom of page / unsigned Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC))

• Indeffed in light of this. Any other admin has my explicit consent to unblock without consulting me if they feel either that this is too harsh, or that there's a convincing unblock appeal. ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sensible block. A Train^talk 10:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That's about as WP:NOTHERE as it gets. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That went a bit sideways. Not expecting that to happen. Appreciate the assistance. Ravensfire (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ShushkoMushko: Antisemitism in talk pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:ShushkoMushko is trying to push an point of view that an otherwise reliable source is compromised by his identity as a Jew. It has been explained to him numerous times that this is extremely offensive and is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, but he/she insists on arguing ad nauseum: [32], [33], [34]. --GHcool (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

He seems to fail to understand that not all Jewish people are Israeli, nor do they all support Israel. He's confusing nationality with religion. --Tarage (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Topic Banning The most generous interpretation is that this is a massive CIR fail. I am going to invoke WP:ACDS and topic ban them from all Arab Israeli related articles talk pages and related discussions broadly construed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

On reflection I will wait a bit to see if there are any other opinions on this, though I think a TBan is probably the best course short of an indefinite block. I will also give them a chance to respond. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

10x, Ad Orientem. I don't want to offend anybody.

If we suppose there is a protected page about the Yugoslavia's civil war for example. It is protected because Serbs and Bosnians are very oftеn updating the page, because there are taking the conflict personally and can not decide how is good and who is bad. I am an ethnic Serb, I am a writer, famous as Levitt, Matthew. I wrote a book about the civil war. Someone uses my book about the war as a source in wikipedia. In the book I wrote "2+2=4". In wikipedia this men wrote "2+2=4". GHcool, which is from different ethnic group, different nationality, does not lives in Yugoslavia and he haven't ever been there asks for the following edit: "It is against the wiki independent sources to write "2+2=4" here, because ShushkoMushko is a Serb, the Sebrs are not independent to the Yugoslavia civil war. Edit the comment "ShushkoMushko wrote 2+2=4". Should be this offensive for me? Or for the rest ethnic Serbs? The question is not rhetoric, no matter will you ban me or not, please answer me. ShushkoMushko (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShushkoMushko (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Being ETHNICALLY JEWISH and RELIGIOUSLY JEWISH are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. --Tarage (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question more bluntly, if you were FROM Serbia or Yugoslavia, then yes, arguments could be made that you had a conflict of interest. However if you had never even lived in either of those places and did not identify as a Serbian or Yugoslavian national, then no, it would not be okay to simply exclude your reference because of your parent's ethnic background. --Tarage (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Support topic ban Editor seems to have bias, so moving away from this area seems like a good idea. I have a feeling though they will either ignore it or cease editing, since all of their edits are in that space. Should be on the lookout for new IP editors popping up saying the same things... --Tarage (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Support topic ban A very new editor who's clearly violating guidelines. Regardless of whether they are acting in good faith, a TBAN is the correct response. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Support sitebanSupport Indefinite block. There must be no room for antisemitic editors on WP. This user knows exactly that it is doing. When they accept the error of their ways they can express it in an appeal. Irondome (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

We impose sanctions in response to actions, usually some form of disruptive editing as is the case here. We do not impose sanctions for beliefs or opinions, even those we may find deeply offensive. In this situation a TBan seems proportionate, and if adhered to, will likely resolve the problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree, users should never be punished for beliefs or opinions. Talk about an NPOV violation! Abyssal (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Abyssal and where exactly, is this NPOV 'violation'? The user is displaying openly rascist behaviours. Are you comfortable with that on WP? Irondome (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I said opinions, I didn't say anything about tolerating bad behavior. Abyssal (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec)*I disagree with you on your last point, Ad Orientem (talk) in that I suspect this individual will just find other topics to advance this kind of behaviour. An indef until they get what the issue is. However, I suspect they do not accept they have an issue. Irondome (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

TBan on what? There is nothing in here to suggest what topic is going to be banned. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It's in Ad Orientem's struck comments: "all Arab Israeli related articles talk pages and related discussions broadly construed" power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, was just about to reply myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This user has been here for like a week. Really we're going to topic ban already? We already won't let them edit any pages related to this subject matter at all until they're 500 edits in. The diffs above do not appear to be virulent anti-semitism. Maybe we WP:AGF and let the user see how talk page discussion works for a few days before we throw them out. agtx 20:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I want to see Shushko respond to my comment about understanding the difference between a religion and a nationality. Does he understand this? Does he understand that a Jewish person does NOT automatically mean they are Israeli, nor does it mean they support/write for Israel? If he can't answer this question, then yes, topic ban is needed. Look at the talk pages he's posted on. They are filled with nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I already commented the ethic groups and the nationality with corresponding example, check my comment here, little bit above. I haven't mention anything about religion, why are you asking about it? Can you answer on my question after the example? Maybe it will be better to move it bellow the GHcool's comment to be more easily seen? ShushkoMushko (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You said, and I quote, "Is a Levitt Jewish? Are the bigger part of the Israeli citizens Jewish? Are the bigger part of Hezbollah victims Jewish?" When called out on this, you replied "I find the notion that a journalist's reliability is compromised by their identity as a Iranian to be extremely offensive." This shows a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING of the difference between being ISRAELI and JEWISH. Since you continue to be belligerent and refuse to answer my simple question, I must re-state that I am in favor of a topic ban at the minimum. You've only been editing for less than a week and already you are saying some hugely offensive things and failing to understand basic concepts. This is the last piece of advice I am going to give you: Stop. Right now, by not admitting that you are wrong, you are ONLY setting yourself up to be blocked. This will NOT end well for you if you keep this up. Do you understand that? You are VERY CLOSE to having your editing abilities revoked. Instead of lashing out at everyone, take a good, honest look at your behavior and recognize that MULTIPLE PEOPLE are telling you that you are clearly in the wrong. I highly suggest you listen. --Tarage (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment If this had come to WP:AE I would have no hesitation in topic-banning this user. Non-EC editors are tolerated on ARBPIA-related talk pages so long as their edits are unambiguously constructive. I think it's pretty clear this line has been crossed. Since it's here for discussion let's discuss it, though I think technically any uninvolved administrator can still act unilaterally here. I support a topic ban. GoldenRing (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree and I'm not seeing anything so far that is causing me to reconsider a TBan. I held back out of an abundance of caution and a desire to let ShushkoMushko respond and see what others had to say. But yeah... barring something really unexpected I think this is going to get dealt with sooner rather than later. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Topic Banned indefinitely from all pages and discussions relating to the Arab Israeli conflict broadly construed per WP:ACDS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup on aisle Nazism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from WP:AN3

There is a somewhat heated discussion ongoing on Talk:Nazism, it involves closure of open ongoing discussions, reversion of the closures, and so forth. Depending on how you define it, I suspect two of us are well past 3RR.

The entire mess starts here; to get the full flavor, you gotta just plough through it.

So, my question here is:

Does repeatedly closing a discussion, despite the fact that at least 4 other people are actively participating in it, constitute edit warring? Anmccaff (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

So, unfortunately Talk:Nazism distressingly often gets inquiries or statements concerning the Nazis actually being part of the political left, and not the political right. These questions/statements have been answered each time they come up, and the standing consensus on the talk page is that the vast majority of mainstream historians consider the Nazis to be part of the right, and not part of the left, despite some strands of "socialism" in the party's formal (but not practical) agenda. (The Nazis being part of the left appears to be a current Alt-right talking point. [35]) So, when this question came up today, I answered it, and then closed the discussion, to enforce the standing consensus on the talk page.

Unfortunately, Anmccaff seems to be the holder of a WP:FRINGE ahistorical position that the Nazis only became considered to be part of the right after the war [36], and for this reason he doesn't want the discussion closed. I opened an RfC on the talk page [37] to further confirm the standing consensus (which can be easily found by anyone simply by reviewing the page's archives) but this doesn't seem to satisfy Anmccaff's need to re-litigate the question that has already been asked and answered numerous times.

The operative concern here is not edit warring, it's Anmcaff's refusal to accept the standing consensus on the talk page, due to his desire to espouse his fringe viewpoint. As such, this complaint really should be on ANI, as it's an issue of Anmcaff's behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff and Beyond My Ken: Hope you two don't mind, but I moved this to ANI, as it really does seem like the better place for this kind of discussion. SkyWarrior 03:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

First, I'd like someone to address what brought this to (another) drama board. BMK repeatedly closed an ongoing discussion, usually, by the look of at after leaving himself the last word. I'd call that edit warring at its worst, especially when it's topped off by template bombing; any comment? Anmccaff (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Anyone who places Nazism on the left needs a CIR block. EEng 03:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Why? The left isn't wholly defined by marxism, isn't entirely international, etc. A good many "progressive" movements have recently been embarrassed by (exaggerated, of course) comparisons of their ideas with Nazi practice, and it's trivial to find a reputable historian who points out that one large part of the reason the old SDP was quiescent was that the Nasties implemented so many of their social policies directly. Yeah, most of this is a minority opinion, but not a fringe one. Anmccaff (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: In my opinion, there is no cause to close down a good-faith article-talk discussion, much less in less than 24 hours. In addition, if the issue has been previously discussed, it behooves those pooh-poohing the query to link to those discussions. Thirdly, there is never a case for closing down a less-than-24-hour-old good-faith article-talk discussion and immediately opening up a snarky so-called RfC with the question "Has the question of whether the Nazis were part of the political left been sufficiently discussed on this talk page in the past, so that when the question comes up again, the response can be brief and to the point, and there is no need to have an unnecessary additional full discussion?" -- Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• You think that ""Has the question of whether the Nazis were part of the political left been sufficiently discussed on this talk page in the past, so that when the question comes up again, the response can be brief and to the point, and there is no need to have an unnecessary additional full discussion?" is "snarky"? Interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it's snarky. You think it deserves a 7 day discussion? Interesting. --DHeyward (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Well obviously, we hold somewhat different notions of what is and isn't "snarky". If I had intended to be snarky, I might have phrased the question as something like "Are we required to accommodate every wingnut who shows up here trying to establish that the Nazis were lefties?" Now that would have been snarky.
  As to whether I thought the actual question I posed required a 7 day discussion - no, I did not. In fact, I don't think it required any discussion at all as being obvious on its face, but I was trying to accommodate an editor who thought otherwise by giving him a chance to establish a new consensus. All it will take is a consensus of "no" !votes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Conversation is warm and friendly but it is also a weapon to drive away editors with a genuine interest in the topic. I have seen several articles where fringe stuff is repeatedly raised and shutting it down quickly is the only way to avoid losing control of the talk page. How do you close a discussion after people have started enjoying it? Actually, it's not really a discussion, it's a list of fringe claims versus reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think the second part of the RfC question (starting from ...so that) should be rephrased to something like "how should we approach if there are recurring discussions on this topic?". Opinionated input would probably be better placed in the threaded comments section. Alex Shih (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Looked at charitably, this is a relitigation of the content dispute, though parts of it tend to mere abuse. GoldenRing (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment Anyone who thinks this, prewar, was a fringe claim simply can not have read any of the leftian commentary between the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Barbarossa...no, make that between the suppression of the POUM and Barbarossa. Writers under party discipline during the immediate prewar era were damn near fawning over Hitler, and touched on exactly the same points raised more recently regarding social policy. (This, of course, led to the first major wave of disillusionment with Stalinism.) Anmccaff (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC) This is ANI, where behavioral issue are dealt with; content issues are not determined here. But, in any case, the fact that Nazis said nice things about Stalin & Co. during that brief period, and the Soviets and other Communists did the same in return is completely irrelevant to whether the Nazis were left wing or right wing. Hitler was just buying himself some time for the invasions of Poland and France, and had no intention of keeping up his "friendship" with the Soviet Union. But even if he did -- against all historical evidence -- precipitously change his view of Communism during that period, it still wouldn't make Nazism left wing. So, yes, your viewpoint is exceedingly fringe, and - as I said - profoundly ahistorical. No mainstream historian agrees with you, and your taking up time and space on Talk:Nazism to put forward your patent nonsense is a complete and total waste of our resources, as is the time it takes to rebut your drivel. What's next? Are we going to give Holocaust deniers all the time and space they want to spew their lies? Are we giving equal time to Flat-earthers? We're a encyclopedia, for crying out loud, not Reddit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC) So, make that point back on the talk page for Nazism...and then expect to be deluged with counter-examples. The slavish adherence of some stalinites to the current official line made for cringe-worthy reading, especially in retrospect. But don't continue to write anything else here until you adress what got you here: Your edit-warring to close an onging discussion. Anmccaff (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Making up a position for someone and then calling it "drivel" isn't an argument, it isn't even a strawman, it's just drooling. First, this isn't my argument. My argument is then when someone raises an arguable point, you don't complain that someon else said it before, somewhere buried in an archive, and close it down before comments end, and then bury it again, and then piss and moan because people haven't read the stuff you've buried. If you have an actual consensus, it's very easy to enforce without that sort of thing. More importantly, George Reisman, say, isn't a fringe figure, and pretending he is to push a POV is a [1066 and all that|Bad Thing]. Anmccaff (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Not makin' nothin' up, bud, just reporting what you wrote [38]: Certainly generally seen that way [i.e. as right-wing] since WWII, especially in the West, but the tie-in between the Nasties and the left were real enough, and rather embarrassing sometimes to both. Stuffing pre-Night of the Long Knives hitlerism into the same pigeonhole as, say George Lincoln Rockwell is comforting, but not accurate. WP:Fringe, pure and simple - and now that I look at it again, in connection with your comment above, not only ahistorical, but completely illogical as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)Well, kiddo, perhaps someday you'll learn the difference between reporting and interpreting, and maybe even learn to do it impartially...but I'm not holdin' my breath. Meanwhile, back at the this board's subject area, do you think it correct to revert to closing an ongoing discussion multiple times, and then claim someone else was edit-warring? Anmccaff (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Please note:When you interpolate a comment out of order, you should indent one tab more, so that people don't accidentally get the wrong impression about how the discussion proceeded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC) BYW, you do know that just mentioning someone's name, without providing a quote or a source, as you did above and in two comments on Talk:Nazism, isn't proof of anything, right? And while we're at it, "Cleanup on aisle Nazism" [39] - you think that's funny? How about "Brad, please clean up the spill on Holocaust", or "Price check on September 11 attacks" - pretty hilarious right? You'd probably like "Can I get an associate in Rwandan genocide?" or "Rape of Nanking, please call your office." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC) To someone who claims to be so familiar with the subject that he can detect fringe without his Ouija board, or even a forked stick, both names should have some meaning. And, yeah, laughing at the bastards is good for the soul, just ask Mel Brooks. But that aside, why not answer the question that dragged you onto this board, indirectly: do you really think that repeatedly closing an ongoing conversation isn't a form of edit warring? And if it is, should you be accusing anyone else of it? Anmccaff (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) So, you think "Cleanup on aisle Nazism" is your own little Springtime for Hitler, huh? Well, feel free to use any of my "jokes" in the future. I recommend you try the Holocaust one in your neighborhood synagogue, or the 9/11 one anywhere in downtown Manhattan. And the Rape of Nanking "joke" should absolutely kill with any group of Chinese people of a particular age. In any case, I've already answered your question: I was upholding a long-standing talk page WP:consensus, while you were just attempting to allow yourself a place to propagandize a totally debunked ahistorical illogical fringe viewpoint. 'Taint the same, McGee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) BMK, take a chill pill. Go drink some tea or something. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• On other articles where fringe - or for that matter ridiculous - ideas are brought up again and again with tiring regularity, we often have a FAQ on the talkpage that such editors can be directed to and the discussions hatted. For examples, see Homeopathy or Homophobia. Incidentally, Anmccaff, do you think this is appropriate? I don't. Black Kite (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In context? Damned straight. When someone can only argue by comparing reputable sources to cartoonish fictional characters, and would rather play home psychologist than discuss sources presented? Anmccaff (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And while we're at it, what about this? Anmccaff is a net negative on that talk page. A Train^talk 08:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

So, ::::It's not the theory which needs to be taken seriously, it's the danger which comes from people accepting it as fact that is the problem, and the reason that responsible academics and other debunk even patent nonsense, such as you espouse. is your idea of a "net positive?" Anmccaff (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If you can't (or don't wish) to see the difference between calling an idea "nonsense" and calling an editor "special" and comparing them to a crazy person, then I'm not sure what to tell you. A Train^talk 08:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And if you can pick out this one piece from the context above and focus so sharply on it, then I am not sure what to tell you. Anmccaff (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You are suggesting that incivility is a matter of volume. You and BMK are both exasperated with each other, but only one of you is resorting to ad hominem. A Train^talk 11:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm, there's a lot of noise above. Shall this discussion be closed? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've hatted bits of it, though I don't have any particular objection to someone just closing it if they think it's going nowhere. GoldenRing (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It'd be nice if someone answered the question well above the hat. Is closing an open discussion acceptable, or is it a form of edit warring? Anmccaff (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It depends on context. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• In the context of a discussion that has been had many times previously, closing it with a link to previous discussions is usually fine. The general exception being if there has been any new evidence/new research that sheds any doubt on the previous discussions accuracy. I am pretty sure that current thinking is that the Nazi's were overwhelmingly of the right. Even with some of the left policies they had (on paper). Short of the entire academic community deciding to change the meaning of 'right' and 'left', that is not going to change anything by having another 7 day discussion on it. Its been asked and answered before. If you want to discuss how the Nazis were not right, go to Stormfront. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  Indeed the historical basis for so many of their 'left-sounding' policies- indeed, up to and including the inclusion of the very word 'Socialist' in their title- was an acknowledgement of the historical strength of support that left-wing parties had in Germany post-1918, and specifically a means with which to persuade their target audience that they were suitable for everyone to join. None of which whasoever alters the fact that modern scholarship of almost every political and academic hue does not give the slightest credence to the fact, or their own self-definition, in discussion of the NSDP's position on the political spectrum. Frankly to suggest otherwise is — fortunavelut luna 12:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• To be fair, Night of the Long Knives was a purge of the left-wing elements, including Brown Shirts. It also included conservatives that were not nazi's that stopped labor unrest. That's the niche Nazi's filled when they appealed to labor organizations to create civil unrest which forced conservatives to violently suppress it. After power was established, they eliminated both the establishment conservatives that shut down the brownshirt rallies with police and also destroyed the leadership of the brownshirts. That niche and collection of party and business leaders is considered right wing. It is also true that the broad categorization of right wing was used as Soviet propaganda that left many soldiers returning back with disdain for anything conservative, leading to the removal of Churchill despite his success. The view that Nazi's are right wing is correct but it's a mistake to say that they represented anything but a niche right-wing ideology--DHeyward (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That's one school of thought, I agree. — fortunavelut luna 13:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strasserism is perhaps our best article on the topic and an understanding of modern-day views. --DHeyward (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, Nazism is one of those things you can't expect a lot of neutralitity about. Go ahead and close it.TomBarker23 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Anyone who places Nazism on the left needs a CIR block."

Are you joking? A block on an editor over a misconception? May I remind you of Wikipedia:Assume good faith?: "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In this case, someone is believing the revisionist 'historians' and giving them undue weight in the discussion. Next will be giving them a place in the article along with the Holocaust deniers. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dimadick, apparently you don't know what a WP:CIR block is -- nothing to do with GF. EEng 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Donald Trump

Not an issue for this venue, the talk page of the article would be the place. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Wikipedia editors, First let me say I respect the work that your group must have to deal with. Let me also say I really don't care who is in office. I spent time in the military and have had enough of politics and those types of social games. Yet you are the portrayer of information and can have a profound impact on history. That is my current field and should be considered sacred. Your article on Trump, especially after the presidential campaign began, seems bias in the direction towards a negative attitude. While comments about his lack of factual competence may or may not be true, it is hard to for anyone to compare that on a scientific level as his statements were under extreme scrutiny while other in history may not have been as closely analyzed. Additionally, it is this and the choice of wording in regards to policy or unsuccessful attempts at change that are evaluated with judgement rather than a portrayal of events. As a provayer of information you have a duty to remain neutral. I urge you to re-evaluate this article and potentially other presidents histories as those are politically charged which can leave traces of opinions in your word choices (whether we want them to or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.235.20 (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Emergency Community Ban for 118 alex

WP:DENY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Short background: long term troll/vandal, vandalises Singapore Buses, creates sockpuppets, claims he is a sock of 118 alex. See the SPI page and the archives for how much time this guy wastes. Hence I would like to propose a ban and to contact the ISP to block the user. 115.66.246.66 (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Support. This editor is an endlessly, astonishingly, and annoyingly persistent WP:LTA case with dozens of socks. Softlavender (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC) By the way, I'm pinging Davey2010 for input. Softlavender (talk) Support More socks please see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of 118 alex and m:SRG Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC) But by the way, is this 115.66.246.66 a sock of 118 alex? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Self-reporting drama magnet that already IP hops and is blocked, creates his own drama board ebtry with no real practical resolution. Sounds like it's trolling. --DHeyward (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Yeah, per user:zzuuzz comment, this ip tagged socks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC) What? User:118 alex is currently blocked. No other users are mentioned here. If he is using block evading socks, no other remedies except blocking the socks is available. Oh, and nothing here is ever an emergency. --DHeyward (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC) His sock was continously created by him. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC) I don't understand the comments by DHeyward. While contacting the ISP is not likely, the gist of this appears to be a straight forward proposal of a community ban, and the list of previously blocked socks is readily available from the linked SPI. Meters (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Meaning he's already blocked. If he's avoiding his block, it doesn't require anything more than establishing he's a sock of the blocked account and a ban doesn't change that process. A community ban doesn't really change the requirement to confirm the sock or any additional authority to block a sock. That makes this a formality rather than a remedy. What protection is this proposal creating and what is hamstringing administrators that makes it an emergency? --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Support More than 30 socks in 5 months and a stated intention to continue socking. Meters (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC) I support a ban on any user proposing this user be banned, anyone tagging their socks, anyone creating an LTA page, and immediate blocks for sockpuppetry for anyone who does. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Could you explain that? Would you rather that the master and all of his socks be unblocked, and for him to have free reign to create dozens more socks that continually vandalize Wikipedia? Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Having just deleted Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/118 alex, again, it's become obvious to me that the only people interested in writing about Alex 118 being a vandal is Alex 118. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC) How does that justify your chilling response and your call for banning and accusations of sock puppetry against me, Softlavender, and any other editor who happens to have anything to do with this? As an admin you must be fully aware that making unsubstantiated sockpuppetry claims is a personal attack. Please withdraw that immediately. Meters (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Sorry if I wasn't clear with the wording, I was referring to the proposer, and other sockpuppets, and not those supporting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Fair enough. I was more than a bit surprised. Thanks. Meters (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Agreed. This discussion should be closed per WP:DENY. The propensity of the community to respond to this sort of bait is disappointing, especially when banning the user would give no change to the status quo of "block/lock on sight". -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revdel request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please revdel this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I'm probably being a bit thick, but I'm not seeing why this needs rev-del. GoldenRing (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: It looks like a veiled death threat.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Fair enough; I didn't read it that way, but I guess you could. Done. GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• What's a "veiled death"? EEng 03:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  It's a death threat, but hidden in something else like a comment. TomBarker23 (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  Thanos's bride at his wedding, of course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mahir M

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Mahir M has been posting hateful comments at other users' talk pages. Some examples:

• [40]
• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]

The user was warned regarding this on 20 September: [47] [48], but has continued such behavior. Dee03 16:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Indeffed. If anyone thinks that's too harsh feel free to shorten, but for my money we don't need accounts that just sit around dishing out racist abuse. Some earlier edits look okay but recently this has been their sole purpose. GoldenRing (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Good block. You beat me to it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC) EDIT: Although, they aren't blocked? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jauerback: Er, yeah, they are now. Some clot over here blocked the wrong account. Fixed now. GoldenRing (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone else see irony in "we don’t what uneducated morons editing in Wikipedia"? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Who needs a clean block-log anyway?! Dive my hawkmen!"

Good block. I hope you don't mind I cleaned up the quotes from the diffs, let's say per WP:DENY. We don't need that abuse preserved forever in the archive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maybe an admin (@Boing! said Zebedee and GoldenRing:) ought to take a look at the encouragement (e.g. [49] [50]) from Rayatbiz on this editor's talk page and decide if that's acceptable. 74.175.117.2 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Harassment here by an user blocked on frwiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

French admin (I'm one of them) blocked User:Olivier Hammam for uncivil comments (insults), for defamation about a public person, and because he was not contributing positively and constructivly anymore (see fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2017/Semaine 21#Samedi 27 mai 2017). Then he started to harass me by email (I asked several time to stop), saying crazy things like: "The truth can't be hidden" (I translate) or "Salut pour la dernière fois, mon con. Désormais je suis toi et tu n'es plus rien. C'est ainsi. Inamicalement. Dieu.", talking about conspiracy, etc. I added him in the "spam" of my email, so it became quiet. (I can forward you emails if needed.)

But now he's harassing me on my english wikipedia talkpage ([51], [52], [53]). It's again some foolish messages (for example, in the first diff, he accuses me to have a bot for spamming... but it's the official French bot fr:User:Loveless which welcomes newbies, and it's not even mine -_-). I again asked him to stop, but he didn't.

Can you do something please?

Best regards, Jules78120 (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Having read all of his contributions here, they are pretty much all complaining about his block at fr.wiki or attacking those he believes are responsible for it. I read that as a simple case of WP:NOTHERE to improve en.wiki and therefore have blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP warring to add inapplicable CSD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't necessarily have time to deal with this shit further, so requesting an assist on Barassi Line where Special:Contributions/2001:8003:645C:9200:297E:9524:2142:D6D keeps adding a CSD for "patent nonsense" (which it is clearly not) despite being pointed towards AfD for his notability/WP:FRINGE concerns. Thanks in advance. Not watching ANI, so please ping. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You may want to mind your Ps and Qs if you want to talk to an admin here. This is a rather frivolous ANI and I would kindly ask that the admin in question takes that into account. This article clearly fails both on notability and on crystal ball. It was a speech given at some point in time that has no significant reason to exist. It is a fringe topic which has no relevance on Wikipedia. --2001:8003:645C:9200:297E:9524:2142:D6D (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Which as has been explained to you repeatedly would be best addressed at WP:AFD. SQL^{Query me!} 23:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey now, I am no the one that made this an ANI. I have no reason to be here, you on the other hand? I'm not sure about that, so you may wish to address your behavior before an admin here says that your behavior is a waste of their time and your language is uncouth. I don't have any more time in my week for dealing with your behavior or your language. --2001:8003:645C:9200:297E:9524:2142:D6D (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You've been told by at least 2 different editors (now 3) that your method for dealing with the issue is not the right one. They are correct. Speedy deletions are for articles that non-controversially break the rules and fit the criteria for speedy deletion. So you have 3 choices: put it up at WP:AFD if you really want it to be deleted, continue to put up the speedy deletion template and you'll get banned, or you can walk away and let the article be. Your choice. Acebulf (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time for people like you wielding a big stick here and wasting everyone's time with a frivolous ANI either... I won't be responding in kind to this type of behavior. If you want to continue digging that hole please feel free to, you may arrive in China eventually. --2001:8003:645C:9200:297E:9524:2142:D6D (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You do realize that two of those who you imply will come to some sort of unspecified grief at the hands of the administrators for informing you of your error are, well, administrators, don't you? Flatly put: you're badly mistaken in your interpretation of the deletion policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You do realise that your statement is indicative of how ill thought out this complaint is in the first place right? In fact it's a perfectly good indicator of how absurd and often tangential articles with no real merrit for being here end up on a place like Wikipedia. It's also a perfectly good case in point as to why most educational facilities have a policy of "kind of" disliking Wikipedia as a source for relevant information in and of itself. However, if you would like to continue to waste my time of day I would be happy for you to elaborate on why its not. My complaints and quote "shit" unquote might actually be based on some sort of relevant and understandable logic. --2001:8003:645C:9200:297E:9524:2142:D6D (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat by IP

Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Please see the legal threat in the edit-summary. Dr. K. 01:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. --John (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you John. Dr. K. 02:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

IP attacking me on my talk page and other places

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 213.226.63.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

A sock of blocked User:PavelStaykov is vandalizing multiple articles. He is edit-warring and is making verbal personal attacks on my talk page in Bulgarian and English, as well on other pages and at its edit-summaries.Jingiby (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Newly registred user attacking me on my talk page and other places

• Reedgg (talk · contribs)

The same story as above. Sock of blocked User:PavelStaykov with the personal attacks against me. Jingiby (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated harrassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A few months ago, I started having problems with GeoJoe1000. He was a rude, aggressive and altogether disruptive editor. Despite repeated warnings from admins, he did not change his behaviour even after attempting to start over as GeoJoe10000. He was subsequently blocked for having sockpuppet accounts. One of his favourite things to do was edit the talk pages of editors who discussed his behaviour, trying to remove criticisms. He returned as GregJohnson1245 and continued this behaviour; he was blocked again. He made several edits to my talk page from an IP address, and I responded by requesting temporary semi-protection. He has since returned overnight as Whatashame0 and has resumed editing my talk page, accusing me of being unable to work with other editors and causing untold damage to the site. At no point have I been referred to the admins for the way I handled the situation; nor have I been subject to any sanctions. It would appear that my only "crimes" (as they were) were calling him out for his behaviour and refusing to accept his apologies (he had previously "apologised" as a way of escaping punishment). His latest string of edits appear to be threatening further disruption, stating that "there's more trouble to come". This is a clear pattern of harrassment by this user. If you check the edit history of his original account, you will see abusive tirades and deliberately disruptive behaviour. If GeoJoe1000 got in trouble, it was all his own doing, as I am sure both Tvx1 and Spintendo will attest (I hope they don't mind my mentioning them here). This harrassment needs to stop. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: I have put in an RFP for full protection on both my user page and user talk page, but given GeoJoe1000's behaviour, I am a little concerned about where he might start causing disruption if he cannot access those pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked Whatashame0 as no Checkuser is required to show that they're not here to build an encyclopedia; a review of their contributions makes that pretty plain. Sounds like this needs a wider SPI though, and that will require an admin with more experience in that area than me. A Train^talk 07:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears that some of his early edits were to establish a facade of legitimacy. His GregJohnson1245 account directly edited my talk page (and Spintendo's) and referenced old conversations; there was no way he could know that without being GeoJoe1000. Now he's making edits where all he does is shift white spaces around and then undo his own edits. It looks like he's trying to set himself up as a legitimate editor before turning his attention to my talk page. It's a worry because it means he's learning, trying to find ways around the rules. It does make me more concerned about how he might act if my RFP goes through, especially considering his threat. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. As facades of legitimacy go, that wasn't exactly Frank Abagnale. A Train^talk 08:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

How do I start an SPI, and what are the long-term effects of it? It's all well and good to shut down each of his socks as they appear, but there seems to be little to stop him from simply re-registering with another account and starting the process over. I'm hoping he'll eventually grow bored, but going by his edit history, he a) holds grudges and b) refuses to learn. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1 has already started one. A Train^talk 10:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP user repeatedly adding original research to Blue Cut Fire and North Fire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 47.34.156.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

All of this IP's contributions are adding the assertion that the local county's (apparent) failure to follow its own fire code was a cause of each respective fire, which is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH. I have attempted to contact this IP on their talk page, but they absolutely don't seem to be listening and I myself have reached 3RR on each article. The reason why I am posting here is that this IP simply doesn't want to communicate about this issue, a prerequisite for BRD to work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Now the IP is just spamming the same text all over the articles, and it's getting to the point of pure disruption.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. If they return we could always semi-protect the articles instead. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple copyright violations (Revdells needed)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 220.101.50.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Already warned)

This IP address added multiple copyright violations to Hellraiser: Judgment, including a link to a pirated movie and a copy-and-pasted summary. Can an adminstrator revdel these edits (specifically the ones involving pirated material)? DarkKnight2149 16:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Since their other contributions don't seem particularly disruptive, I haven't blocked but have left a warning at their talk page. Hopefully they'll learn from the experience. GoldenRing (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Them learning would be the ideal outcome. Hopefully they continue editing in a constructive manner. DarkKnight2149 16:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User AJ Pachano sockpuppet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Previously, AJ Pachano (talk · contribs) was accused of edit warring on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Changes to Infobox services. I was also subject to a personal attack on their talk page. I figured the user had quit wikipedia, but I found PhilEvolution (talk · contribs) had started editing and creating similar templates. Both users share a lack of proper grammar, and were editing the same types of articles. One of the 50+ examples on the second account is Jackson Park station. Cards84664 (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a separate noticeboard for socks. I was going to bring AJ Pachano here for disruptive editing but that may not be necessary now. I'll just add that Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs) is probably the same guy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Confirmed to each other
• AJ Pachano (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Armanjarrettp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PhilEvolution (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• I've blocked the older account Armanjarrettp 72 hours for socking and indeffed the other two.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  I noticed that one modus operandi of AJ Pachano was to mark a page for speedy deletion (improperly, by using the {{delete|...}} template and not stating which WP:CSD criterion]] applied) thus, and then immediately contesting that deletion on the corresponding talk page thus. This behaviour was repeated today, on exactly the same pair of pages, by PhilEvolution here and here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Cards84664 and Kendall-K1: For future ref, sockpuppet reports are not really an ANI matter: the page which specialises in this (experts hang around it) is WP:SPI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter, have the accounts been blocked? If not can someone please deal with them? Having SPI-like reports on ANI is a problem, because they do not get follow-up attention and official admin closes. Softlavender (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs) was blocked 72 hours, all the rest indef. Nothing else to do here. Somebody (Softlavender?) should apply a closure box to this report. An SPI may not be needed unless there are more outbreaks of railway socking. Plus, ANI is way faster than SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for deletion of redirect page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just moved List of natural disasters in Great Britain and Ireland to List of natural disasters in the Brirish Isles because of lack of coffee, but can't move it to the correct List of natural disasters in the British Isles because that page already exists as a redirect. Could an admin clean up my mess, please? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• • When you've finished your copy you may like to consider why the article was called Great Britain and Ireland in the first place, and maybe how much Irish people dislike being called British by anyone, but especially by the English. And then put the title back to the perfectly sensible version it was at originally.Mdw0 (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This Irish person doesn't like being called British by anyone, didn't notice any English people around earlier calling him anything, and is well capable of NPOV distinguishing between a geographical term and an ethnicity. This Irish person is also not fond of people telling him what he and his fellow citizens should think, cos that's a bit imperialist... ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It should clearly remain at the original title. Ireland is, after all, not part of the British Isles (unless you can provide a reliable source that says so :p and the ethnicity of anyone- here or not- is irrelevant. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 14:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

British Isles, British Isles naming dispute -Roxy the dog. barcus 14:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. You should get on the WP:RD  :) OK, carry on. — fortunavelut luna 14:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm far too short tempered for that. -Roxy the dog. barcus 14:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

71.82.237.58 ‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All this user does is vandalize. --MopTop (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @MopTop: Simple vandalisim like this should be reported to WP:AIV, which I will do. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Actually I'm can't tell if the recent edits are vandalism, so I won't report for stuff from October. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

But I will warn. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boundarylayer and pregnancy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is about

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

The pages being disrupted are:

• Death of Savita Halappanavar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Premature rupture of membranes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• University Hospital Galway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Savita Halappanavar went to University Hospital Galway in Ireland having a miscarriage and died several days later of a heart attack caused by sepsis from an infection of the sac around the fetus, which also caused the miscarriage. She and her husband had asked the medical staff to terminate the pregnancy when it became clear she was going to lose the baby, and the medical staff said "no" as the staff did not see her life as in danger at that time (their understanding of Irish law). Her death become a rallying cry for changing Irish abortion law. Subsequent investigations found "death by misadventure" and blamed the medical staff for failing to diagnose the sepsis early enough to treat it.

Boundarylayer has been disrupting the heck out of that article and related ones. Looking at the editing stats for the talk page of the article about her death, Boundarylayer has added 138 KB in 89 edits; the next highest person has added only 26 KB and the next is 21KB - so Boundarylayer has 5x the nearest person and has just been bludgeoning the hell out of that page, as you can see a quick scan of Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar

It is hard to discern what Boundarylayer's issue is, exactly, but they apparently object to the death of Halappanavar being discussed as an abortion rights issue, and have been trying to focus the article on her actual cause of death, which was the doctors not treating the infection/sepsis.

Prior to my getting involved they were making edits like this with edit note Stop the spin, the facts are in. And Boundarylayer was the subject of ANI thread opened on Oct 22 here, about their overfierce editing which included personal attacks. That thread ended with a block, given here at their Talk page. Please see the several unblock requests and the long thread below that, where they continued battering the issue.

Since I started paying attention, they have been trying to force content into the article, based on their own application to the situation of Royal College guidelines about bacterial sepsis in pregnancy, as in this diff. Yikes! I have also given them several warnings on their talk to slow down and edit more carefully.

Boundarylayer more recently turned do the Premature rupture of membranes article, and I have seen their edits there from the getgo. I am showing the kinds of edits/arguments that people have been dealing with at the Death article:

• Boundarylayer added content based on that Royal College guideline, here.
• This guideline like many is based on the principles of evidence-based medicine and each recommendation has an evidence level; in this case the recommendation level is "4" - the lowest - based on expert opinion and not evidence. This is all explained, within the ref itself. I expressed that in the content saying "based on expert opinion and not clinical evidence" here.
• Boundarylayer reverted that here, with edit note: Removed unsourced POV editorializing
• and continued accordingly at the Talk page here, where they jumped right to an RfC and continued to characterize this as unsourced and POV, as well as "bizarre".
• I explained very clearly here what the source said and what that meant.
• Boundarylayer ignored that and again insisted that the ref doesn't say what it does, and then further asserted that it would unethical to get clincal evidence (this is not true, as observational studies are ethical and are a form of clinical evidence).
• At that point I warned them that they were pretty out of ROPE and further bad arguments editing like this would lead me to call for a TBAN.
• They then replied again, again asserted the ref does not support the source. And most recently has written this tl/dr screed. This is heading directly into the situation that everybody has already been through at the "death" article.

Boundarylayer has also made this series of edits to University Hospital Galway, which I have not analyzed. But this is clearly a campaign they are on.

In any case, Boundarylayer is very clearly passionate about this topic, is bringing a very strong POV, and is not competent in the medical stuff and is unwilling to learn and follow the sources. Their participation is a time sink and I think they should be topic banned from anything related to pregnancy. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban: I hate to say it, Jytdog, but I don't see particularly disruptive conduct on Boundarylayer's part. I see a content dispute. Moreover, I don't think Boundarylayer is wrong. The presentation and phrasing of the EBM evidence level, which is (as here) mostly buried in an appendix, gives the synthetic impression that the claim by the guideline is unreliable or improper. That said, Boundarylayer needs to cool the rhetoric (as in the way the RfC presents the dispute); that is problematic, but in my opinion, not problematic enough to merit sanctions. I was ready to support something against Boundarylayer because of how outrageous his or her conduct was in the last ANI thread, but this behavior just doesn't rise to the level of meriting sanctions. At least, not yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to oppose this, then I suggest you start putting your own time and effort on the line dealing with this time sucking behavior. it is an exact continuation of what they were doing before. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it to me. What got Boundarylayer in trouble in the last thread was calling people he disagreed with schizophrenic and then defending that insult by claiming it was factually true. And, as I say, I don't think Boundarylayer is wrong on the content in this one instance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv, what got Boundarylayer in trouble that he is way too intense and is not really engaged with the policies and guidelines. If your review his talk page, you can see he has a pattern of locking his teeth onto one issue, often taking a contrary stance, and battering the hell out of articles in the topic to try to implement his contrary stance. In the fall of 2012 into summer 2013 it was energy (nuclear and coal), which brought him a block for making legal threats (and while he was blocked, he socked), and many warnings. Now it is this. The combination of over-intensity, not listening to to others, and only kinda-engaging the policies and guidelines makes his presence on the topic a time-sink. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: There comes a point where one can no longer blindly assume good faith. The reality is Boundarylayer is hell-bent on introducing an anti-choice PoV to Wikipedia. A "victory" on Premature rupture of membranes article (via the sledgehammer method of a full RfC on one sentence rather than even once raising the issue on the talk page!) will be used to feed into changes to the Death of Savita Halappanavar article, presumably in preparation for articles relating to Ireland's forthcoming referendum to Repeal the Eighth Amendment to Ireland's constitution. As evidence, please see the staggering volume of contributions by this one author - in terms of both number of edits and wall-of-text size of those edits - to the premature rupture of membranes article, a 'sandbox' page to rehearse arguments, and in particular to Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar. Forum shopping has been used (without following the requirement of notifying all other involved editors), wikihounding of at least one other involved editor has taken place, and a block for personal attacks has been issued.

On the issue on which a non-neutrally worded RfC had been called (also without notifying all other involved editors), level 4 evidence is expert opinion. Not drawing attention to the fact that it is not based on clinical trials would - per Pincrete and Jytdog - serve to mislead the reader. That should not happen and I can only conclude that the intention was, in fact, to mislead the reader.

Boundarylayer seems to not quite get sourcing, at least in relation to medicine, pregnancy and abortion. E.g., they have previously argued - erroneously, and at length - for only WP:RSMED to appear in the Death of Savita Halappanavar article, which couldn't happen for obvious reasons; and, for example, that the Irish newspaper of record and other broadsheets are "tabloids" and not RS... at least until such time as he found a pro-life opinion piece in one and apparently wants to use a quote sourced to "a nurse friend" of the journalist to attack the standard of public healthcare in Ireland, in which case it presumably stops being a "tabloid" and becomes a RS broadsheet again. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you get there. I mean, I fully admit we have someone who has strong opinions, but that is not in itself disruptive or unacceptable for Wikipedia. Nor is discussion which grasps multiple points of view. Frankly, I find the qualification of the EBM guideline source as "not based on clinical trials" or however it was written, highly questionable, especially as an attorney who has worked extensively with evidence based medicine guidelines. The phrasing used is the sort of argumentative phrasing one finds when opposing counsel is trying to argue that the opposite conclusion should be reached: That because the guideline is not based on clinical trials, it should be considered false. This is absolutely the impression the phrasing gives, and the understanding an average reader will draw from it. It's exactly the sort of convenient placement of "neutral information" that quack physicians and their lawyers use to counter arguments against their pet procedures. You can see this sort of thing constantly from the electrotherapy industry. In any event, this is not a discussion that is appropriate for ANI. It's a content dispute. It belongs at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. Apart from that, I don't see anything so objectionable about this instance of Boundarylayer's conduct that merits a TBAN, and no real nexus with past misconduct to conclude that there is a longstanding pattern of misconduct so significant that it jeopardizes editing. Yes, Boundarylayer is loquacious. That's not a bannable offense. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

We've both had our say so I'm not going to add anything further, except to say the particular wording in the RfC could easily have been discussed as normal on the talk page; at least three editors supported a form of words that I believe addressed your concerns. That can still be discussed on Talk:Premature rupture of membranes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my only involvement was limited to suggesting an alternative phrasing at the RfC at Talk:Premature rupture of membranes. Hopefully a wording that would satisfy the medical people's demand for 'exactness', but which would be clearer to the layman. Bastun and Jytdog were perfectly amenable to somesuch compromise, BoundaryLayer was not. Why, I cannot say, but the reasons offered were 'odd' and unconvincing. Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I know I said I wouldn't contribute further, but Jytdog, above you said you hadn't checked the University Hospital Galway series of edits. It might be worth checking... I looked over them last night. The edits include:

• Addition of criticism by the Mayor of Galway complaining about UHG's triage system (the source does not refer to triage at all);
• Criticism (from the same newspaper report) "opining that the rate of improvement was too slow" - omitting any response from the hospital, which is available in the very same source;
• Claim that patients were left on trolleys for 2 days "without being seen" - the source actually says patients were left on trolleys for 2 days without being admitted (a huge difference!);
• Inclusion of newspaper report on a six-year-old Healthstat survey of Ireland's 29 Acute Hospitals (but no direct link to the actual report) which ranked the hospital "worst-performing in the country". Very much an WP:UNDUE cherry-picking exercise - the HSE have ceased the practice of ranking hospitals, saying "It is not intended that these reports are used to make comparisons between hospitals or hospital groups. Hospital activity will vary from hospital to hospital depending on the size and type of hospital, the services provided, clinical activity and the complexity of the care the hospital provides to patients." (Source)
• This apparently "resulted in political calls [plural] for the Minister to intervene"; well, maybe, but the source only talks about the Mayor issuing such a call.

So, in summary, yes, an agenda being pursued across multiple articles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: Boundarylayer is editing with an agenda, or at least with a highly idiosyncratic opinion, and is brushing away criticism of the spin he places on articles with walls of text on the talk pages. Here is an example (more on request) of editing with the space of 48 hours, typical of their approach at Death of Savita Halappanavar – I must make it clear that the topic of the article is not notable simply for being a woman's death through medical error, but for being a trigger for extensive protests about the legal situation in Ireland:
  • Removing mention of the legal uncertainty [54] with edit summary: Removed nonsense spin, abortions had been preformed before her death, the only new law is this new suicide clause being within the remit of "threat to life"
  • Replaced the words "requested an abortion" with "Savita was to infamously request an abortion" [55] with edit summary Stop the spin, the facts are in.
  • Removed the words "after having been denied an abortion" three times more [56] [57] [58]

  And that's just one small part of their editing: a glance at the talk page Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar will show the extent of the problem in trying to discuss the issues. An immediate example is the section started by Boundarylayer is titled No WP:RSMEDs argue that "denial of abortion" played any part in her death, which turns out to be completely untrue (the HSE enquiry and report into her death is MEDRS and clearly makes recommendations about the denial of abortion). Reading through that talk page will give an idea of the tactics adopted by Boundarylayer.

  I'm sorry, Mendaliv, this has gone far beyond a content dispute. This is a single editor who is tendentiously pushing a POV against all the advice and concerns expressed by multiple other editors. They even tried to call it a fringe theory in an attempt to remove any mention, and you can see the time-sink it caused at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 58 #Death of Savita Halappanavar, where two other editors gave their opinion that it wasn't a fringe theory, only to have Boundarylayer argue the toss with them, instead of listening to the other editors' opinions. It now seems the same problem is spilling onto other pages like Talk:Premature rupture of membranes where he preemptively jumped into an RfC when he wasn't getting any agreement with his spin. He titled the RfC RfC On describing RCOG guidelines, should it include the curious insinuation that they are "not based on clinical evidence"? which is about as far from neutral as it's possible to get. This editor has no clue about how to edit collaboratively and has no respect for any opinion other than his own. To be frank, he's a menace on any article and talk page where he has a strong opinion, and the editors on those pages should not have be subjected to it. --RexxS (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: Having considered the recommendations of the folks above and having examined the evidence, I think it is abundantly clear that Boundarylayer is trying to push their own viewpoint, even in the face of contradictory reliable sources. I think a topic ban is clearly needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: Having been initially involved only as an innocent RfC-er, but now having examined the evidence, it is clear that Boundarylayer cannot attempt to be neutral in this topic area. What swayed me was the inclusion of 'mud-slinging' opinion pieces as fact in WP voice in the lead. If any of this material deserved to be included AT ALL, WEIGHT considerations dictate that it should be in 'controversy' or somesuch further down the article and attributed. What makes the agenda-pushing doubly distasteful, is that it concerns a young woman's death. Some topic areas demand higher standards of behaviour and Boundarylayer is not a net contributor in this area. Why should we believe that this is going to change. Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: they don't seem to be particularly keen on collaborating with others to achieve an NPOV synthesis in this matter. -- The Anome (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I should start by stating I was in a dispute with this editor over whether the Death of Savita Halappanavar was a topic for the FTN. That said, this editor's only response to any advice, disagreement, or anything other than complete support of their position is to attempt to drown other editors in walls of text. He evidently conceptualizes any lack of total agreement as "the other side" on this issue and can only respond with combative attacks. The content of the arguments they then deploy apparently matters little compared to the vigor with which they use them, as they will say completely inconsistent or even directly contrary things about the same topic depending on the argument they are having. These issues are either ones that this editor has not yet shown the ability to maintain any semblance of neutrality or otherwise comply with the WP:CCPOL. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• This was archived by the bot in tis diff; I have unarchived it. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This editor refuses to accept consensus and refuses to walk away from disputes. This bullheaded behavior is tendentious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, having has this car-crash clog my watchlist for the past month. I have no problem with editors who are here with an agenda, provided they recognize that agenda, recognize that not everybody else shares that agenda, and work to ensure that their edits remain neutral or at least don't get in the way of people who are working to ensure articles remain neutral. None of this applies to Boundarylayer, who is trying to bully and bluster Wikipedia into ensuring that their particular POV is stated as incontrovertible fact and all other views are hidden from view altogether or dismissed as incorrect. Enough people have tried, and failed, to explain NPOV that I'm now certain BL is never going to be willing to work with other editors on these topics. ‑ Iridescent 00:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Tendetious editing and borderling battleground behaviour.L3X1 (distænt write) 12:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User RAF910

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To the administrator, If you agree, could you please apply the appropriate sanctions to user RAF910 for what I consider non-collaboration, incivility, personal attacks, harassment, supposition and aspersions.

I requested the user assume good faith, stated to the user twice, I consider the user's statements personal attacks and harassments, but they continued.

Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Difference files showing the user statements, please click on the link then read the right side.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&diff=next&oldid=741118844

"I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time".--RAF910 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=741209444

"I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time" RAF910|talk]]) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=742239645

"Who knows, like a Pokémon Go player, maybe you just got caught or carried away in the moment and you don't realize that you've crossed the line."--RAF910|talk 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=742344735

my error, a repeat

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&diff=prev&oldid=792120156

… "CuriousMind01 has a habit of endlessly arguing his position, Wikilawyering and ignoring consensus that opposes his position. So, it will most likely be reverted again." RAF910|talk 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"As predicted Curiousmind is ignoring consensus and reverted the changes to the Bushmaster XM15 page, as well as the SIG MCX. He clearly does not care what any of us think, and is pretending that this discussion where an overwhelming majority of his fellow editors disagree with him is meaningless. And as usual, he is trying to intimidate anyone who opposes him by accusing them "personal attack and harassment." " RAF910 Revision as of 11:55, 24 July 2017

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&diff=prev&oldid=804529223

"CuriousMind01 attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page

My fellow editors CuriousMind01 is at it again this time at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page, where he is attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus and make the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms meaningless. So that he can add "Criminal use" sections to as many firearm pages as he can get away with. I encourage my fellow editor to comment there" --RAF910|talk) 16:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council&diff=next&oldid=804562757

"*OPPOSE CuriousMind01 is a tenacious edit warrior obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to firearm articles despite massive opposition. About two months ago he lost a discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms by a 10 to 1 margin. Unfortunately, he has a win at all cost mentality. So, now in typical fashion he's ignoring consensus, forum shopping, wikilawyering, and gaming the system. He even attempted to unilaterally make this change himself, because he believes that silence equals consensus. He will most likely accuse me of personal attacks and harassment again for daring oppose him and pointing at his questionable behavior, a normal intimidation tactic of his. I will inform my fellow Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms members that he attempting to override consensus and make the Project meaningless." --RAF910 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Another editor comment to the above:

Please don't inject personality-based criticism and supposition/prediction; it's not helpful... See WP:ASPERSIONS. …. SMcCandlish 9 October 2017 (UTC)

User notified https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RAF910&diff=prev&oldid=806595798 CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Most of these are a year old. I don't see harassment or personal attacks. I'm curious to hear if RAF910 has anything to offer here. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, could you please see recheck, I showed the text below the above links, which I consider rudeness and false aspersions: like obsession, edit warring, ignoring consensus, wikilayering,forum shopping, etc. The statements are all in the past 13 months. Please allow me several days to respond to the comments below. Many result from levels of consensus and local consensus does not override community consensus. (sorry, add the text lost the numbering) Thank you.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh...I forgot to mention that he is incredibly argumentative and constantly Wikilawyering. See above statement.--RAF910 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a case of sour grapes. CuriousMind01 is obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to Firearms articles, against massive opposition. He is also very upset that I’ve pointed out that he ignoring consensus and that he is continuously forum shopping.

His most recent activity’s, started in July of this year, when he lost a discussion on the “Criminal use” topic at the WikiProject firearms talk page by a 10 to 1 margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&oldid=803378307

On August 15th, he started forum shopping at the WikiProject council talk page with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Council&type=revision&diff=795679904&oldid=793877524. His intention is to overturn the 10 to 1 consensus against him on the WikiProject firearms talk page.

However, nobody thought enough about it to even respond. So, on September 27th he unilaterally made the change himself, with this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide&diff=prev&oldid=802568241 which I reverted.

On October 9th he continued forum shopping and started a new and separate RFC discussion at the WikiProject council talk page on the very same subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Council&type=revision&diff=804434393&oldid=803706627

He also went forum shopping at the Wikipedia Village pump page with this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=804435002

Please note, that he is currently losing the RFC discussion at the WikiProject council talk page, again by a 10 to 1 margin.

I am not the only one to question his behavior. Other editors, have also pointed out that CuriousMind01 is ignoring consensus and forum shopping at the WikiProject council talk page discussion.

• ”Oppose this end run around the consensus at the project. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)”
• ”Oppose This is a perfect example of forum shopping. What’s next an appeal to Jimbo? --Limpscash (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)”

CuriousMind01 has an a agenda. If he cannot respect two separate discussions, with 10 to 1 consensuses against him, then he doesn’t belong here. Therefore, I recommend that he be indefinitely blocked. If not, he will waste more of our time on another page.--RAF910 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• RAF, this is helpful (though please use fewer paragraphs), but we need more, from more editors, to issue a block per NOTHERE or whatever. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• CuriousMinds has battled this issue of including criminal use many times, refusing to accept consensus. Like this RfC result (which had quite a few participants) [59], then again in another discussion at the same article [60]. Continually forum shopping. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 23 October

• If you review User:CuriousMind01 edit history, he seems obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to Firearms, Automotive, and other articles. As other editors have noted, he is a very aggressive editor and will endlessly argue his position against overwhelming consensus. I agree with RAF, that he is ignoring consensus and WP:Forum shopping. He is also WP:edit-warring on the Bushmaster XM15 article, with these edits [61][62][63]. He is also Wikilawyering with these edits [64][65], where he basically claims that his fellow editors cannot make changes to the Bushmaster XM15 article. In essence, that he is right and everybody else is wrong. He has launched personal attack with this edit [66]. My experience with User:CuriousMind01 left such a bad taste in my mouth that I stopped editing. Please see "Advice" discussion [67] at User talk:AmaryllisGardener. I also recommend that he be indefinitely blocked.--Limpscash (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Drmies in brief response: I think the comments above may originate from users not knowing some Wikipedia rules.

Like the Recent Example cited above: WikiProjects Firearm project took an internal vote to remove criminal use from gun articles then amended their advice page. I voted no as a violation of WP:NPOV. Then users RAF910 and Limpscash twice tried to delete community/RFC consensus, criminal use text from 2 articles 1, 2, which I and another editor twice restored, trying to explain in edit summaries and project that "local consensus" is not binding.

Having seen wikiprojects incorrectly try to impose their criteria on articles, I thought it would be helpful to add an additional criteria educational example to the Wikiproject "such as" examples, not a rule change. Using proper WP steps, talk page, be bold, RFC, commenters explained my example was not needed, because wikiproject rules already exist, like:

• “WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles.”
• "Advice pages: "projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope,". "and that other editors..get no say.."because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay."
• [[Local consensus]] "among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. ...WikiProject advice pages,...have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."

Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wait--if all else fails you claim the others don't know policy? :::I did not mean it that way, sorry if the words read that way.

BTW all y'all REALLY need to learn how to do proper indentation and paragraphing--these sections are clear as mud, esp. when editors start citing other editors. Anyway, I wish y'all had pinged me when that proposal came up (and RAF, I see 8 to 2, not 10 to 1--ansh666 was also an "oppose", and I see only 8 "support"s, but that's by the by. Again, anyway, CuriousMind, "Local consensus" etc, sure, but if you're the only one adding some section that others oppose, you're still guilty of editing against consensus. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Drmies it is the opposite, I and another editor were restoring the community+RFC consensus, I was not adding any section, and have never added anything against consensus. My understanding of Wikiprojects policy wording is local consensus is equal to a single editor opinion not a group of persons, and local consensus cannot override community consensus like 2 RFCs, if editors wish to change community consensus, they can through community processes, but not just by an internal wikiproject vote unknown to the community, and then try to change community articles. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: if anyone still cares - to be fair, my oppose was in the other direction, "this doesn't go far enough" type. I would prefer "criminal use" out of these articles completely. By the way, isn't there a gun control arbcom case sanction thing that this could possibly fall under? ansh666 02:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a far more than local consensus. Wikipedia articles about things generally do not center on, or even touch much on, the externalities of their use or abuse. Anmccaff (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• How has this not been closed yet? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

So a handful of gun fans vote behind a closed door to mollify firearm articles and this Curious guy tries to stop it? Sounds like he had the right idea to me. And trying to get more eyes on something isn't forum shopping. Saying that guns should be treated the same way as cars, or shoes, or hats is Big Gun playing small games. Cars are for driving, shoes are for walking and hats are for wearing. It would be stupid to remark on their criminal use. Guns are for killing. The End.62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a reason to have one: to defend yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Also for shooting sports. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 17:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Where was this closed door vote? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• The above statement by IP user demonstrates why the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms opposes "Criminal use sections". As they are little more than a political soapbox. As for the issue at hand, I still recommend that CuriousMind01 be indefinitely blocked for edit warring, ignoring consensus, wikilayering, forum shopping, etc. As his above statements are basically an admission of guilt, with a "I'm right and everyone else is wrong justification." --Limpscash (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment as far as I can tell, Special:Diff/792089859 is the underlying content dispute, and I'm not terribly impressed with either version. This seems like a lot of rules-lawyering to try to win an argument that hasn't been discussed by either CuriousMind01 or RAF910 at all on Talk:Bushmaster XM-15. Both users should be WP:TROUT-ed, but nothing else is called for here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• I'm going to reiterate that per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, gun control., and I can't think of a better example for why. Now, I have no experience in this and I'm marginally involved anyways, so there's no way I'm touching it, but can someone please step in here? ansh666 18:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Adding few interactions here of note:

• Talk:Mass shootings in the United States
• Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)

While I am not familiar as much with the background on User:CuriousMind01, it does seem to indicate above and on these pages that some editors have a habit of "ganging up" to form a consensus and oppose changes to the status quo. Hate to stir more drama here, but this seems to be a serious issue in making sure pro-gun and anti-gun voices are both heard. And right now, it seems that one side has a lot of sufficiently motivated editors in this respect.

CC: User:wbm1058, Shaded0 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• How interesting that when it goes against what you want, it's "ganging up". For someone who has stated that they don't "GAF" and considers trademarks to be "bullshit", you've spent a lot of time on the issue lately. But I sympathize. Truly I do. I feel the same way every time a lot of sufficiently motived editors come into articles that they've never had an interest in before just to add some negative incident about a person because it has recent news coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Talk about going down the rabbit hole. Shaded0 wanted to add Mass Shooting to the Colt AR-15. I opposed him with this edit OPPOSE...We already have Mass shooting and Mass shootings in the United States page with a body count, and (for the moment) nowhere on those pages does it even mention AR-15s. That's where the info you want to add belongs, NOT here.--RAF910 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC). Shaded0 also wanted to change the redirects for the term AR-15. After a discussion on the Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation) his ideas were rejected by a 4 to 1 margin. He then went to the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:AR-15_(disambiguation) complaining about involved editors. His argument was rejected This really isn't suitable for DRN, consensus has already been established against the filing editor on the article's talk page, and having a discussion here is unnecessary. If the filing editor is still unhappy, I ask that he discuss it further or open an RfC. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC). In the meantime he began to edit the Mass shootings in the United States and Talk:Mass shootings in the United States pages. I have made NO edits (ZERO EDITS) to those pages. This is just another case of an ignoring consensus and forum shopping.--RAF910 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel both you two's behavior is toxic and feel obliged to call this out. My involvement or lack thereof in your group of buddies makes my points no less relevant. Your behavior on this is bordering on immature and if that's forum shopping so be it. Someone needs to rattle the cage on your private little "safe space" domain.

This behavior on 8 to 2 fails the smell test to me, and deserves to be called out. Shaded0 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

WOW!!! I don't think that User:wbm1058 got the ping. I'll leave a message on his talk page.--Limpscash (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The October 2016 discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 10 § Misuse of "Criminal use" section is also relevant to this. wbm1058 (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The focus of this dispute is the "Criminal use" section of WikiProject Firearms' "guidelines" (mentioned several times above), which are classified as advice:

In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage (ex. ban on mail-order of firearms after use of the Carcano in JFK's assassination would qualify). Similarly, if its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine). As per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". Therefore, the addition of said information should be limited to a simple link in the "See also" section.

The WikiProject has had "criminal use" advice for over ten years; the initial May 2007 version, established by this discussion, said:

In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria, such as: legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage (ex. ban on mail-order of firearms after use of the Carcano in JFK's assassination, or the ban of the Intratec TEC-DC9 after its usage in the Columbine shooting) or its notoriety must greatly increase (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became quite infamous after Columbine, because of the incident). This policy rose out of a large debate over the notability of criminal use.

The more restrictive advice, limiting mentions of criminal use to "see also" links, was added on June 29 as a result of this June–August discussion, previously mentioned and linked above. Though the final !vote totals, after the last vote was made on August 1, have been discussed above, at the time the new "guideline" advice went up on June 29, the vote was just 3–0. The new advice doesn't say exactly how a "see also" link actually "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources".

The new "guideline" advice was actually first implemented on Bushmaster XM-15 with this June 21 edit – about three days before the "see also" guideline/advice proposal was made on the WikiProject's talk page. That was quickly reverted, but was restored on June 29 by the same editor who felt that three !votes in five days (the third vote was his own) was sufficient to deem it a consensus worthy of updating the advice. This content removal also overstepped the bounds of the guidance. Though the advice is only on criminal use, the "Legality" section stating that New York and Connecticut had banned these rifles was removed as well. This Bushmaster XM-15 article was just created in July 2016. It was quickly nominated for deletion, but survived that with a SNOW close based on arguments including "the weapon is notable for its use in several highly prominent shootings, including the Beltway sniper attacks and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, both of which resulted in major lawsuits against the manufacturer." and "Also has a bizarre habit of showing up in high-profile incidents (off-hand I can think of the Beltway Sniper attacks, 2007 Colorado YWAM and New Life shootings, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and North Hollywood shootout, and the shooter in the Capitol Hill massacre had one in his truck too)." The section on legality was added on 14 September 2016 by CuriousMind01. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:The.roshnik. has persistently vandalized[68][69][70][71][72] this page by adding unsourced and inflammatory material, ignoring continuing reverts. The user obviously has some kind of ax to grind against the institution. Please block this user. Yoninah (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page, since there seem to be multiple attacks going on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Yoninah (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long term edit warring or OWN on multiple Thai articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Retrieved from archive — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Golf-ben10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and multiple IPs are wp:Edit warring - long-term - on multiple Thai articles. wp:OWN may be part of this. Some of Golf-ben10's edit summaries seem suspect such as this Please specify source. when the IP is simply linking an article that already exists. A few of the recent articles involved:

• The Face Men Thailand (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Face Thailand (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Template:The Face (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Face (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Foreign relations of Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Asian Winter Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be no discussion other than wp:Edit summaries Would someone please look into this? It's not something that I'm willing to wade into. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

IPs have been edit warring on Maria Lynn Ehren as well. I wasn't going to report until giving them a final warning, but since it's already here I might as well. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 09:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked Golf-ben10 for two weeks for persistent edit warring on multiple articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I cannot do much to stop the dynamic IP hoppers, but I have semi protected 4 articles from the list above for two weeks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Mark612 WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user has a clear COI, pushing non-notable articles and POV statements regarding the Jewish community, especially in northern ohio. 2 previous blocks for edit warring in norther ohio articles, pertaining to judiasm. pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This editor hasn't been active in the past three days. They wrote a couple of fairly well constructed, good faith articles about topics that the community later concluded were not notable. What is the pressing need to take administrative action against this editor right now? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

ah. I see your point. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sock attacking me on my talk page and other places

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• КурзапомакаДжингиби (talk · contribs)

A sock of blocked User:PavelStaykov is vandalizing my talk again. He is edit-warring and attacking me in Bulgarian and English, as well on edit-summaries. The name he has registered is also abusive in Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP leaving rants on Turkey articles and in edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2600:1012:B024:A548:E406:4DC1:8F23:FE08 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is leaving rants on a number of Turkish articles and edit summaries. Should they be revdel per DENY? Jim1138 (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Revdel'd all edits/summaries under RD1 as copyvios of http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocidefaq.html. ansh666 10:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Thanks for all your work! Jim1138 (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death threat by User talk:107.77.226.52

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has made a death threat against Doom Trolling at Draft:Doom Trolling. Synthetic Woolly Mammoth (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the attack page, Synthetic Woolly Mammoth. Thanks for reporting it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Synthetic Woolly Mammoth (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I also blocked the IP, who has been disruptive in various places. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hallward's Ghost

Hallward's Ghost is edit-warring and otherwise disrupting an ongoing good-faith content dispute at Talk:Carter Page.

• Two editors, Abierma3 and myself, believe that certain content recently added to Carter Page is presented non-neutrally (my rationale summarized here). Two other editors, Billmckern and Volunteer Marek, believe that the content is neutral and should be left as-is. The talk page discussion wasn't making much progress so I tagged the paragraph while Billmckern started an RfC.
• All fine and well, until Hallward's Ghost came in and removed the tag three times ([73][74][75]), falsely claiming a non-existent consensus to do so while not even bothering to weigh in on the merits.
• Hallward's Ghost then flatly rejected my good faith attempt to discuss on their talk page.
• Meanwhile Hallward's Ghost insists on cluttering up and disrupting the RfC with needless bickering over the tag ([76][77][78]) that belongs elsewhere.

Hallward's Ghost's participation appears to be aimed at ramming through their content preferences while subverting the dispute resolution process. I am hoping an admin will tell them to stop. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh, this is mostly Dr. Fleischman edit warring against several editors and trying to sprinkle "magic RfC dust" to protect "his version". Disruptive behavior is by OP (WP:BOOMERANG), not Hallward's Ghost. Volunteer Marek  18:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You're in black-is-white territory. I've let "your" version stand. The only "version" I've tried to protect is the tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with what Marek says here. I came upon that article yesterday or the day before, and noticed an odd, completely unsupported tag. I removed it, and went to the talkpage, where it seemed clear that Fleischman was engaging in POV pushing. He has attempted to expand the dispute to my talkpage, even after being asked to let the discussion be contained on the article talkpage multiple times. He threatened me with ANI should I remove his tendentious tagging, and here we are. Edit to add: Fleischman has also attempted to hat my comments at the RFC, apparently considering himself some sort of moderator, when he's clearly not. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Additionally, this seems to indicate that "Abierma3" made their first edit in six months to support Fleischman's odd interpretation at the article in question. Something smells pretty fishy about that. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI me then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• I edit Wikipedia for pleasure. I have no interest in descending into the political muck. But it's a pretty clear WP:DUCK quacking if anyone else has an interest in taking it to SPI. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Now a personal attack by Hallward's Ghost. This is basically bullying. See WP:POV RAILROAD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's another personal attack by Hallward's Ghost and further disruption of the RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Unconnected editor monitoring the ANI board. I traced through the edit history and this looks like WP:BOOMERANG. Accurately sourced info doesn't merit a POV tag. The burden is on the nominator to first prove POV, essentially by creating reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the sources, which has not been done here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Just because you disagree with with the OP doesn't make this a boomerang. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang applies when what you are doing is what you are accusing others of doing. Adding a POV tag is a form of POV, especially if it's not warranted. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No, boomerang applies when the OP has committed a sanctionable offense. It is not an accusation that should be made lightly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You're arguing with everyone. I was completely uninvolved at the Carter Page article, and now you're trying to present me as some sort of POV warrior. Tim Templeton was uninvolved, now you're vaguely threatening him because he warned you about the possibility of this ludicrous "report" BOOMERANGing on you. The problem isn't everyone else. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A third personal attack here. This is textbook POV railroading. Hallward's Ghost has added literally nothing constructive to the content dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• You asked a question, and I answered it. And putting your words in bold doesn't make them any more convincing. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 22:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I was confused about what you considered POV. The placement of the tag makes it appear that you had an issue with the last sentence. Had you tagged the whole section, it would have been clearer. Nonetheless, I recommend that if you feel the section has a bias, rather than putting in the POV tag, you might consider adding info that substantiates your claim, with proper sourcing. There's no reason you couldn't add something to the effect "Other media sources have reported that there are no connections to the Trump campaign and no inconsistencies in Page's testimony", or whatever your concern is. And I know you'll be prepared for the sources to be challenged if they are known for bias. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Another constructive approach might be to discuss the issue on the talk page, yes? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Comment as uninvolved: I see no personal attack in the bolded diff that DrFleischman linked above. If we are going there, I would support a WP:BOOMERANG. Also, bolding diffs does not make them more convincing. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 01:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yoshi24517, how about accusations of sockpuppetry that lack evidence? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

He said he wasn't fully convinced of it. Yes, he did say it was fairly obvious, but he did not want to feed the fire more. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 01:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yoshi24517, are you suggesting in good faith that this comment, which Hallward's Ghost said, in an RfC, "I'm fairly certain we're dealing with one actual person, not two, with regards to Fleischman and Abierma3," was not an accusation of sockpuppetry? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am. I see nothing wrong with his actions. WP:BOOMERANG. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 01:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no comment on the rest of this matter, but how is that not an accusation of sockpuppetry? The accusation may or may not be correct, but it is clearly an accusation. Also, about this: Yes, he did say it was fairly obvious, but he did not want to feed the fire more. Er, when you allege/insinuate that someone is a sockpuppet, you're knee deep in fan-flaming territory. Lepricavark (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is standard procedure for POV warriors to try to get their edits into an article, then fallback to adding a POV tag when plan A fails. Tags in contested articles are merely ways of poking opponents, particularly since it appears there is an RfC about some content issue. If the disputed text is a BLP violation, remove it and report why at WP:BLPN. Otherwise, stop using tags as weapons. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, what is the basis for accusing me of adding the tag as a weapon? And are we not interested in examining the Hallward's Ghost's conduct? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Remember DrFleischman, all conduct is analyzed when you drag somebody to ANI, not just who you're complaining about. Including yourself. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 01:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it. Only my conduct is being analyzed here, and not rigorously at that. I have complied with all policies and guidelines, Hallward's Ghost has not. Please respond. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The possibility could be that it's because your actions are in the wrong here, and his are not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, could be. So educate me. Or do you prefer to go with the herd? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved, just passing by and saw this. The very least you could do, Dr. Fleischman, is stop badgering everyone that says anything that could be remotely construed as negative about your editing. It kind of reflects negatively on you. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

So let me guess: if a group of editors agree with you, it's consensus; but if a group of editors disagree with you, it's "go[ing] with the herd"? That's a tad self-serving.

Perhaps you could spend less time Wikilawyering over a tag and more time discussing the issue you think makes it necessary. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--I have made some incredibly bold edits at the t/p in conjunction with developments at the article and at here.Let's see where we progress!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Because I can't take any more of this bickering any longer, I've made a boldish edit and removed the personal attack that DrFleischman linked above in his bolded diff. Diff: [79] Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 17:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: accusing someone of being a sock is definitely a PA, repeating it doubles the offence. Suggesting BOOMERANGS, without even providing diffs of bad behaviour, is of course rational behaviour personified. Pincrete (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata spam campaign

Copy/paste from Talk:Abbywinters.com:

The trick of showing data from Wikidata and then changing the data from Wikidata has worked in the past, with the result that the article got spammed for several months. So I don't appreciate edits which seek to display the URL directly from Wikidata. It is better to be cautious, seen the past spam campaign at this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

[80] — see what I mean? Spamming Wikipedia with aliexpress.moe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

End paste. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You probably want to check out Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, where there is an active case discussion regarding this very thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition to Abbywinters.com and AliExpress (reverted by Ivanvector today), I have also reverted Playboy as having a spam link being pulled from wikidata. All three were set to pull from wikidata by User:Yomol, a relatively new user with <50 edits. I will notify Yomol as per the requirements. Gricehead (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Yomol is up to anything sinister, they're just replacing hardlinked websites with the template that pulls the data from Wikidata, which is kind of what we want. A few of the pages they updated were later changed to a spam link on Wikidata, but it would be hard to say at this point that Yomol is involved with that activity. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

For avoidance of doubt, I wasn't accusing, just stating facts. Gricehead (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

One arbcom case request about this is enough for now, isn't it? GoldenRing (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Er, kind of what who wants? Isn't this precisely why there is a request for an ArbCom case? I understand there is to be an RfC. I hope it will be expressed in terms I can understand so that I can vote against pulling anything onto Wikipedia from Wikidata. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC) I concur; I'd thought Wikidata was just for covenience with interwikis and such, but apparently that's...changed in my absence. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC) That's what we want if 2 things were true: 1. Wikidata had policies in place that meant content there is compatible with our policies here (currently they do not). 2. There were enough editors on Wikidata to spot and react quickly to deliberate vandalism (currently there is not). Until those things happen, all content pulled from Wikidata is potentially unreliable and wide open for abuse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Persistent trash edits, adding unsourced occupations to actor bios

• MarioandLuigiRockz (talk · contribs)
• 2606:A000:F8CC:9100:DD4A:F26B:4152:434E (talk · contribs)
• 2606:A000:F8CC:9100:1831:6501:D49A:4C27 (talk · contribs)

Appears to be using multiple IPs as well, as at Jim Cummings. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Several of the edits bear the hallmark of Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs). It has been so long since this editor created a sock that a SPI might wind up as stale. Of course it could be someone else but this is the one that I am familiar with. MarnetteD|Talk 17:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Correcting page histories and redirect pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please restore the history of the page Atrocities in the Congo Free State? Someone changed the name to Congo Horrors back in June without obtaining consensus and since I lacked moving permissions at the time I just manually moved the text back. Unfortunately the history of the page was left at Congo Horrors. Could someone please fix this? -Indy beetle (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You should never do a move by copy and paste (as you apparently now know). As there have been further edits since it was done, a history merge is needed now - I'll see if I can sort it out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

History merge done, and the whole history is at Atrocities in the Congo Free State. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threat to ... Wikipedia's servers?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

80.192.7.85 left a weird threat in an edit message:

If you mess with my talk page, I will personally destroy your back up Apache servers and post Practisher Isealismus as the only page on wikipedia.org.

WP:911 says treat all threats as real threats, but it also says only email the emergency address if it's a real emergency. So I'll just dump this here and let somebody else deal with it. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP's been given a week off in light of the contents of this edit. Given that the threat included the use of nuclear weapons—and the IP is located roughly 6000 miles from Wikipedia's servers—I don't consider it credible. ‑ Iridescent 13:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha. Ha. Ha.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could be Trump. EEng 16:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Definitely not credible then... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC) And not Albert Shanker either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Well, there's a blast from the past. EEng 18:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC) What, your words aren't backed with nuclear weapons? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC) The closest thing to nukes around here is F-bombs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I notified emergency the WMF is aware. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New round of Nsmutte socks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an administrator, and preferably a CU, please swing by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte and block the latest group of socks, and also run a checkuser, as I believe it again would be helpful here. No notifications being sent. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Considering that a SPI case requesting CU is open, there's no point of this thread as a CU would come by at the SPI anyway (who check SPI quite more frequently). --QEDK (愛 • 海) 07:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could I bring to your attention the current activities of the above Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal, who is now contributing under 86.174.164.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and recently under 86.174.165.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); with the same unsourced,unreferenced and in some cases inaccurate changes to various actors articles. Today they have reached 3RR on the Richard Farnsworth article. I have tried communicating on the latest Talk page to no avail. I have also tried to communicate with admin Ponyo, who has previously been involved - but they do not appear to be active today. Could I suggest yet another block for this long-term abuser? With thanks, David J Johnson (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI: The specific source cited in the article doesn't say what time of day Farnsworth killed himself, but other newspapers reporting it said it was Friday evening, not Friday morning as the IP kept inserting.←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BlueboyLI

I have a complaint about BlueboyLI. He keeps reverting my edits, then makes edits of his own, only to revert them a few minutes later. [81] [82] [83] [84] He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, he's just using it as a toy. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: I went through your recent edit history and couldn't find any attempt, either on an article's talk page or on that user's talk page, to discuss this editing pattern with them. Are you trying to get an editor who's been actively editing for almost four years indefinitely blocked without giving them an opportunity to explain first? CityOfSilver 19:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid an edit war here; he just reverted my edit on WFSB, citing "overlinking".[85] Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvcg66b3r (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: I've asked that user about this behavior. I don't necessarily agree that the rationale is wrong; your edit at that page does seem to run afoul of our manual of style's section on how much to link. The problem, as near as I can see, is that this user never bothered to explain this, and they just made an effort to do so at their talk. This discussion seems to have started with an issue regarding BlueBoyLI's content work and behavior, and since they seem to be ready to address both issues, this thread can probably be closed. CityOfSilver 20:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

BlueboyLI has been doing some overlinking himself, as reported by AldezD here. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Concerned about potential paid editing/questionable usage of multiple accounts (whitewashing) on Jobbik-related articles

The accounts in question are Mundzuk (talk · contribs), Bidoistvan (talk · contribs), Newaccount1810 (talk · contribs), and possibly Leveskockaa (talk · contribs). Since mid-October, the first three of these accounts has been active on the Jobbik article, significantly expanding it with consistently descriptive edit summaries and highly similar behavior; these additions, compared to the previous content of the article, can largely be described as whitewashing. While I am personally aware of Jobbik's attempts to realign itself as a more mainstream right-wing party and distance itself from its far-right roots, the content added by the editors has largely had the appearance of attempting to paint the party in a much more flattering light. Two have also made significant contributions to Gábor Vona demonstrating similar behavior. All four accounts use VisualEditor frequently and utilize identical reference formatting and choice of reference parameters. I'm unsure how to describe this behavior as anything other than highly NPOV and suspiciously similar.

Newaccount1810 has uploaded images to Commons that have been handled by OTRS volunteers; how this image was verified may offer some insight into these accounts.

Leveskockaa appears to have been inactive for nearly three years, returning this month to make two edits, one of them also related to Hungarian politics which appears slightly critical of a small Hungarian liberal party, and has some behavioral similarities. The account was attached to login.wikimedia.org on 4 February 2017, en.wiktionary.org on 6 February 2017, and commons.wikimedia.org on 9 February 2017, without any logged actions in that period.

User	Jobbik?	Gábor Vona?	VisualEditor?	Ref formatting?	Images?	Registered?
Mundzuk (talk · contribs)	Yes	No	Yes	Yes, identical	No	11:54, 17 October 2017 (en.wikipedia.org)
Bidoistvan (talk · contribs)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, identical	No	12:16, 18 October 2017 (en.wikipedia.org)
Newaccount1810 (talk · contribs)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, identical	Yes	08:32, 18 October 2017 (en.wikipedia.org)
Leveskockaa (talk · contribs)	No	No	Yes	Yes, identical	No	10:03, 21 December 2014 (hu.wikipedia.org)

Mélencron (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Confirmed to each other
• Bidoistvan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Newaccount1810 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mundzuk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

•  Possible to the above:
• Tzollee (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) same IP, close UA
• Leveskockaa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) same geolocation as above but different ISP and UA.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, have the accounts been blocked? If not can someone please deal with them? Having SPI-like reports on ANI is a problem, because they do not get follow-up attention and official admin closes. Softlavender (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The three shown as 'Confirmed' are all blocked; the others are not. User:Tzollee has no edits. User:Leveskockaa hasn't done anything yet of an alarming nature so I don't see the reason for a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Mélencron, the confirmed sockpuppets on EN-wiki have been blocked on EN-wiki. Does this sufficiently address your concerns? Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Abusive edits by User:Darkness Shines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The thread became too long as I posted a number of lengthy posts for explanation. Then the admin Giant notified me about "Too long, didn't read" issue. As a result, I collapsed all of my earlier lengthy posts as suggested by the admin SarekOfVulcan. Please read my complaint at the end of the comments of other users. I wrote about final issue very clear now, so the earlier discussions can now be ignored. Idel800 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:TLDR

It's the article - Genocidal rape. I added a new section "Occupation of Germany" describing the mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army soldiers and also by American, British and French soldiers during the later stages of World War II. I also added a section "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" (during World War II). And I added another section "Nanking massacre" describing the mass rapes, sexual mutilations and murders of Chinese women in Nanking, then the capital of China during Second Sino-Japanese War by Imperial Japanese Army. (Rape of Nanking was already described in the article though, but very briefly, so, I created independent section for it and added further details) The user User:Darkness Shines reverted all of my 3 different edits leaving an edit note that my I copied contents from the Wikipedia article Comfort women and I need to complete attribution. But even if he thinks one my edits requires attribution, be can't revert all my edits back. After that I made some minor edits in "1971 mass rape of Bangladeshi women during liberation war of Bangladesh" which was already there in the article. Later, I posted my 3 reverted sections one by one again. And while posting "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army", I gave reference to Comfort women article in the edit summery to complete arbitration. But again, the user User:Darkness Shines reverted all my 3 posts leaving an edit note that mass rape of German women during the occupation of Germany was not a genocidal rape. Both in edit note, in article's talk page, my personal talk page, he leaves message that mass rape is not genocidal rape. But, an estimated 2 million women were raped. Many were raped to death. 240,000 women and girls died as a consequences of rape. The troops forcibly impregnated German women and fathered 400,000 war child. No wonder it was a genocidal rape. Furthermore, the genocidal rape article deals with number of other mass rape cases such as rapes in Democratic Republic of Congo, rapes during 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh, War in Darfur, rape during Battle of Nanking, rape during Rwandan genocide, rape during Bosnian war, rape during Partition of India, and all of which are described as genocidal rape. And there is no reason the largest mass rape case in human history (which is rape during occupation of Germany) is not a genocidal rape. Despite my explanation in the article's talk page, the user User:Darkness Shines only reply with the statement that mass rape is not genocidal rape, but doesn't clarify anything about how is all other wartime mass rapes mentioned in this article genocidal rape but the mass rape in Germany during World War II isn't. He states that none of the references I provided for the mass rapes in Germany during Word War II describes these rapes as genocidal rape. I replied him that none of the references provided for other mass rape cases mentioned in genocidal rape article describes those rapes with the term genocidal rape either, and that doesn't matter at all. The sources mainly documented the instances those took place. In his reply, he then claimed that the references used for all the mass rape cases listed in the genocidal rape article describes those cases with the term genocidal rape, which is a false claim. Anyway, then, I again posted my 3 sections one after one, and for the "Occupied Germany" section, I left an edit note that, "I disagree that mass rape in occupied Germany was not genocidal. Women were raped to death. 240,000 died as a consequences of rape. An estimated 2 million women were raped. The troops forcibly impregnated German women and fathered 400,000 war child." But after that the user User:Darkness Shines again reverted all of my 3 sections back and again this time he left an edit note that "At least one copyvio, http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm". He indicated a partial copyright violation that I may have made in the "Nanking massacre" section. Actually, I did not copy pasted the original texts from the article. I wrote most of it myself. But the instances I described are same as the instances mentioned there. The phrases, expression are different. However, my post was long and I included many of the instances described in the article. So it's possible that I have made a partial copyright violation, but not a complete intentional violation. But again, if the dispute is about the "Nanking massacre" section only, the user User:Darkness Shines can not revert all my other separate edits. He not only reverted my "Nanking massacre" once again, he also has reverted my "Occupied Germany" and "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" sections once again. Even he reverted the minor edits I made in "rape during 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh" part earlier. After that, I posted only 2 sections - "Occupied Germany" and "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" and re-enabled my earlier minor edits made in "rape during 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh" part, but did not post the "Nanking massacre" section due to the copyright dispute by the user User:Darkness Shines. I told him that I am keeping the section "Nanking massacre" removed for now, will review this section for copyright issues and will post revised version later. Also, I requested him not to revert my other edits backs as I have temporarily removed my section "Nanking massacre" which was under his copyright dispute. Here is my edit note that I posted for that edit, "Removed 'Nanking massacre' section to find out copyright issues. But you can't revert my other edits - World War II 'Military brothels of Japanese army' and 'Rape during occupation of Germany' and my earlier minor edits on 1971 rapes in Bangladesh". But, unexpectedly, he again reverted my 2 sections "Occupied Germany" and "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" along with my earlier edits made in "rape during 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh" part leaving this edit note, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb. Please check his edit version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809990887 But this was completely a false allegation of copyright violation as the article he specified was not used as reference anywhere in any of the edits I made and I have not copied any single content from the article he specified. In the "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" section, I copied contents from the Wikipedia article Comfort women which I also mentioned in the edit summery for attribution. Thus, the revert the user User:Darkness Shines was unfair and of course his false claim of copyright violation and providing a false and misleading article link in edit summery was absolutely unfair. So, I reverted his misleading edit back again leaving this edit note, "Undid revision 809990887 by User:Darkness Shines: False allegation of copyright violation. No content was copied from the article he specified. As mentioned in earlier, "copied content from Comfort Women; see that page's history for attribution"" See my edit version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809994405 But he again reverted my edit back without specifying any reason in edit note. Here is his edit version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809995777 By doing so, he has made 4 reverts in same page within 24 hours period which is a violation of 3 revert rule. Furthermore, he made a false allegation of copyright violation, posted link to misleading article in edit note (which was never used as information source in the article) and reverted a number of different posts at the same time without any reason. Idel800 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Two revisions are now revdel'd due to copyvios, another which I thought was a copyvio was a circular reference which was copied one of our articles, i acted due to suspected copyvios. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC) The complainant sounds like the ref desk Nazi troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC) WP:WALLOFTEXT. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC) This should be closed with no action; the content-dispute isn't a concern for ANI. WP:ANEW is thataway if you want to argue the edit-war thing further, but it probably isn't worth it. While there are clearly 4 reverts by Darkness Shines, one is of a revdel'd copyvio, so there's no 3RR violation that justifies a block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC) There is no copyright violation. Please check the last 2 edits he made: This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809990887 Where he writes an edit note as "Reverted 1 edit by Idel800 (talk): Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb. (TW))". But actually, I never used his specified article as reference in any of my edits. And I never copied any texts from the article he specified. He made a completely fasle allegation and reverted a number of my edits. As a result, I reverted his edit back leaving an edit note as, "Undid revision 809990887 by User:Darkness Shines: False allegation of copyright violation. No content was copied from the article he specified. As mentioned in earlier, "copied content from Comfort Women; see that page's history for attribution"" But despite this he made his 4th revert without mentioning any edit note: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809995777 There is no valid reason behind his last 2 reverts, so it clearly violets 3 revert rule. Furthermore, he made a false claim of copyright violation and posted a misleading and deceptive edit note, which is unfaithful behavior. Idel800 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Ummm. This revert came immediately after two edits that were revision-deleted by Diannaa for "Copyright violations: http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm" (page log. So, it is clear that at least some of the reverts by Darkness Shines are proven reverts of copyright violations. It stands to reason that the other reverts by DS are good-faith reverts of copyright violations and are exempt from the three-revert rule. @Idel800: I'm not sure what administrative action you are suggesting be taken here. The only possible one I see justified would be to block the editor who made these edits ([86] [87]) today that were removed from the public archive (since that action has already been taken). Are you really suggesting that? —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC) For the love of God, if they've violated 3RR, all you need to post is four diffs. What you've written has two downsides: it probably took you hours, and there is a vanishingly small chance anyone else will read it. GoldenRing (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC) My complaint is not just for violating "3 reverts rule". My complaint is for potentially abusive editing. So, I change the title to Abusive edits by User:Darkness Shines. About the edit [88], it may be a copyright violation, but that is not my fault. I did not know it's still a copyright violation. I tried to write the entire article in my own words covering all the instances and not directly copying and pasting. I did so, but it appears as it's still a copyright violation as I have written a long post to cover many instances in the source page: http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm. I can summerize it again, so that's not the issue. About the edit [89], making that edit was essential as I created independent section for "Nanking massacre" and details of "Nanking massacre" would have to posted under the "Nanking massacre" section. Now come to the point. Even if my edit [90] constitutes a copyright violation, that is not an excuse for User:Darkness Shines to revert all of my edits. As you can see, by making this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809977782, the user User:Darkness Shines not only reverted my [91] [92] edits, he also reverted all of my previous edits at the same time which includes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809972618, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809970963 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809800033 And the copyright violation he indicated can not be an excuse for reverting all my earlier individual edits. He has made an abusive bulk revert. Furthermore as you can check the edit history of genocidal rape, once my edits [93] [94] were reverted, I never posted those contents again. My next post was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809989496 where I reposted my previous edits except the one which is disputed for copyright issues ("Nanking massacre"). And I wrote the edit note as, "Removed 'Nanking massacre' section to find out copyright issues. But you can't revert my other edits - World War II 'Military brothels of Japanese army' and 'Rape during occupation of Germany' and my earlier minor edits on 1971 rapes in Bangladesh". But the user User:Darkness Shines again reverted my edit. This edit had nothing to do with the copyright dispute he is talking about. So the copyright things is irrelevant here. As the reason he reverted this edit, he left an edit note as, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb" which is a false allegation. I never used the link he specified as reference in my edits and I did not copy texts from his specified article. No wonder, he has made an abusive revert here. And is also responsible for posting misleading and deceptive edit note and making false allegations towards another editor. As a result, I reverted his edit back again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809994405 and wrote my edit note as, "Undid revision 809990887 by User:Darkness Shines: False allegation of copyright violation. No content was copied from the article he specified. As mentioned in earlier, "copied content from Comfort Women; see that page's history for attribution"" But the user User:Darkness Shines once again reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809995777 without mentioning any reason for making this revert in the edit note. So, I report User:Darkness Shines for abusive editing. Idel800 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "it may be a copyright violation, but that is not my fault. I did not know it's still a copyright violation." WP:COPYVIO is the fault of the editor that inserted the violating content. "I didn't know it was copyrighted" might mean you get a {{trout}} instead of a block, but it's still your fault, and the fact that you have repeatedly, based on this continuing WP:WALLOFTEXT, inserted copyvio information reflects poorly on you. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC) The copyright thing is irrelevant here. I didn't mean I thought it was not copyrighted. I just meant I thought it would not be a copyright violation as I rewrote the article in my own grammar style rather than direct copy pasting. But later the post was challenged for copyright issues and was removed. But that incident is totally irrelevant to my complaint here. The user Darkness Shines not only reverted my edit that was under copyright dispute, he reverted all my other 3 individual edits back. I reposted those contents again after he reverted, but I never reposted the contents those were under copyright dispute. But the user Darkness Shines continue to revert my edits, which are in no way relevant to the copyright dispute. As you can see, by making this edit [95], the user Darkness Shines not only reverted my [96] and [97] edits, he also reverted all of my previous edits at the same time which includes [98], [99] and [100] And the copyright violation he indicated can not be an excuse for reverting all my earlier individual edits. He has made an abusive bulk revert. Furthermore as you can check the edit history of genocidal rape, once my edits [101] and [102] were reverted, I never posted those contents again. My next post was [103] where I reposted my previous edits (those were reverted by Darkness Shines) except the one which is disputed for copyright issues ("Nanking massacre"). And I wrote the edit note as, "Removed 'Nanking massacre' section to find out copyright issues. But you can't revert my other edits - World War II 'Military brothels of Japanese army' and 'Rape during occupation of Germany' and my earlier minor edits on 1971 rapes in Bangladesh". But the user Darkness Shines again reverted my edit. This edit had nothing to do with the copyright dispute he is talking about. So the copyright things is irrelevant here. Here's his revert- [104] and as the reason he made this revert, he left an edit note as, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb" which is a false allegation. I never used the link he specified as reference in my edits and I did not copy texts from his specified article. No wonder, he has made an abusive revert here. And he is also responsible for posting misleading and deceptive edit note and making false allegations towards another editor, which is unfaithful behavior and is a violation of community trust. As a result, I reverted his edit back again. Here's my edit [105] where I wrote my edit note as, "Undid revision 809990887 by User:Darkness Shines: False allegation of copyright violation. No content was copied from the article he specified. As mentioned in earlier, "copied content from Comfort Women; see that page's history for attribution"". But the user Darkness Shines once again reverted my edit. Here's the revert he made [106] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Furthermore, his misleading and deceptive edit note (while reverting valid edits) and making false allegations towards another editor is unfaithful behavior and is a violation of community trust. So, I report Darkness Shines for abusive editing. Idel800 (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "The copyright thing is irrelevant here" Nope! When you drag someone to ANI, your conduct in the case is scrutinized just as closely. And the more you insist you shouldn't be scrutinized the fishier your case smells. Anyway, you're still WP:WALLOFTEXTing, but what I can pry out of it is that you're basically accusing him of making up copyright claims when he is providing the source that the copyvio is claimed to be from. In that scenario I find it very hard to believe the claim that it isn't copyvio, especially since there are demonstrated cases of your violating copyright, and your statements make it clear you don't fully understand Wikipedia's copyright policy. Just so it's clear you understand: copyvio does not have to be cut and pasting; WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE is a thing. Unless I'm missing something (quite possible) your best bet here is probably going to be to drop the stick. (Also, please indent your replies.) - The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC) My complaint is for the last 2 reverts made by Darkness Shines, where no copyright dispute is involved, but Darkness Shines writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is reverting the edits for a copyright violation, when he is reverting my valid edits abusively. One of my edits was previously challenged and removed for copyright violation [107], [108] though, but I never posted those disputed contents again in the article afterwords, and that incident is completely out of this discussion now. And as you can see, in his last 2 edits, the user Darkness Shines reverted my other valid edits those have no relevance to the previous copyright dispute. In this revert [109], the user Darkness Shines writes an edit note as, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb" to make it appear as he is reverting the edit for a copyright violation. Now please have a cross check. I don't recognize the article he specified and I never noted down any information from the article he specified. Also no such reference is used in my edit either. He writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is making the revert for a copyright violation while he is reverting my valid edits abusively. I reverted his action back afterwards [110] and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again [111] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Furthermore, his misleading and deceptive edit note (while reverting valid edits) and making false allegations towards another editor is unfaithful behavior and is a violation of community trust. So, I report Darkness Shines for abusive editing. Idel800 (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Keep in mind that Hitler had already metaphorically raped the entire nation of Germany. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

FAO everyone here - WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 13:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

My complaint is for the last 2 reverts made by Darkness Shines in Genocidal rape, where no copyright dispute is involved, but Darkness Shines writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is reverting the edits for a copyright violation, when he is reverting my valid edits abusively.

One of my edits was previously challenged and removed for copyright violation [112], [113] though, but I never posted those disputed contents again in the article afterwords, and that incident is completely out of this discussion now.

And as you can see, in his last 2 edits, the user Darkness Shines reverted my other valid edits those have no relevance to the previous copyright dispute. In this revert [114], the user Darkness Shines writes an edit note as, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb" to make it appear as he is reverting the edit for a copyright violation. Now please have a cross check. I don't recognize the article he specified and I never noted down any information from the article he specified. Also no such reference is used in my edit either. He writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is making the revert for a copyright violation while he is reverting my valid edits abusively. I reverted his action back afterwards [115] and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again [116] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Furthermore, his misleading and deceptive edit note (while reverting valid edits) and making false allegations towards another editor is unfaithful behavior and is a violation of community trust. So, I report Darkness Shines for abusive editing. Idel800 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion Darkness Shines was making good-faith attempts to remove copyright violations from the encyclopedia. About half an hour after performing the reverts, he asked me to have a look at the suspected violations. Things like that are tricky to investigate, and that's why he asked me to double check his work, as I've done literally tens of thousands of these copyvio searches. It seems unlikely to me that if he was knowingly violating any of our policies or guidelines he would draw attention to his actions by calling in an administrator to examine what he was doing. I discovered that the content he found at the Huffington Post had been present in our article Comfort women since at least 2011, and thus was okay to copy as long as the proper attribution was given, which it was. The other instance he asked me to look at was a copyright violation, material that you copied from http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm. Not all the content he removed in that edit was copied from that source, but lots of it was, so I did revision deletion. He removed some of the content for editorial reasons other than copyvio, which is something that you will need to discuss with him on the talk page if you propose to re-add the content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Adding: I just realised that I used the pronoun "he" when speaking of Darkness Shines without noticing they have not specified a male gender. My apologies if this was presumptuous or incorrect. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC) 🍁🍁

I have blocked User:Idel800 48 hours per the complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. There is no urgency in this particular article that prevents Idel800 from waiting for a proper discussion before restoring their material again. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppetry and edit warring on several business schools

Not sure if this should be be reported as mainly sockpuppetry or edit warring, and/or requests for page protections, so thought to bring it here. Some IPs have been edit warring on several articles linked to education. HEC Paris has seen a particularly heavy edit war [117]. It's obvious that 187.168.4.122, 187.214.154.118 and 201.130.60.179 are all socks of the same person; they do exactly the same edits, on the same pages and with the same edit summaries (examples abound, but here is one for each [118], [119], [120]. Articles targeted by this user include HEC Paris, Grenoble School of Management, University of St. Gallen, ESCP Europe, EMLYON Business School, Skema Business School, IE Business School, ESADE Business School, ESSEC Business School, EDHEC Business School (Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales du Nord), and Global Alliance in Management Education. There has not been edit warring on every article, but it's rather revealing that if anyone disagrees with the user's edits, then edit warring takes off. I take no position on which version is better, as that is besides the point. It's clear their is no consensus for these changes nor does the user tries to establish one. Whenever the user is reverted, they revert back on the spot. This is clearly a user with a serious WP:OWN issue; the user enforces their view of how educational articles should look, reverts whenever somebody disagrees, uses multiple socks, and never engages in any discussion. All of these are indicative of disruptive and unsuitable behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If I may, it would be beneficial if some admin could look into this issue. It continues to spread as the user has since moved on to several other related articles, repeating the same pattern. Jeppiz (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging Kudpung for input as someone from the schools wikiproject; he can maybe make a recommendation. Softlavender (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• All the pages named in this report are now semiprotected. Yesterday I noticed a registered account doing the same thing, BrunoLanafor (talk · contribs). The editor is now blocked for socking by User:TonyBallioni. The IP 187.214.154.118 has been editing similar articles on the French and Italian Wikipedias. It is possible that some admins of the French Wikipedia might have an idea about this. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sekanaya12 for a more complete report of this problem. Not sure if anyone has visited the affected articles to see if any recent changes should be rolled back. Many of the named IPs are from Mexico City, which is a sufficiently unusual location for commentary on French schools that one could suspect a single sockmaster and not a loose group of like minded people. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrey Sabirov

I have a concern about a user named User:Andrey Sabirov and the way he edits. Despite being warned several times (as seen in his talk page about posting unsourced material on WP, he still continues to put various unsourced content in articles. I don’t see how he is improving the encyclopedia in anyway. His edits were reverted many times in the past, yet he still edits disruptively. I don’t know how he is going to change and when he will change his behavior, unless we block this user if he continues to not listen. He has been editing for a while now and his edits are still the same; not improving the project in any way from what I see.

107.77.226.25 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Although he has only made 380 edits [121], the editor has received 9 warnings (including final warnings) since he started editing in January 2016 [122], and hasn't heeded any of them. I agree that this needs administrative attention. Softlavender (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• • I think it's fairly unimpressive too that the warnings on the talk page are from a wide spectrum of editors, making it clear that this isn't just a case of someone treading into someone's WP:OWN garden. I'm not seeing malice here, but I am seeing a lack of understanding as to how we do things. I don't think that urgent attention is needed given that this account has only edited once this month, but it is worth keeping an eye out because if the pattern continues a WP:CIR block might be needed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC).

Look2See1 (talk · contribs) and categories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As you can see at User talk:Look2See1, I have recently had two run-ins with this user and posted multiple times asking him to 1.) explain his edits which were confounding and 2.) please stop editing one small section of a much larger category tree to make that scheme inconsistent. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Look2See1&oldid=809266735#Album_categories for a conversation where he made many edits which were not only incorrect but hardly even intelligible and now https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Look2See1&oldid=809266735#Category:Lists_of_countries_in_Africa where he insists on changing list categories to being "lists of lists" when they aren't. I really don't know what to do here. @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: since you helped me talk some sense into him last time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Look2See1 certainly needs to be educated on how categories work and is encouraged to look at how existing schemes are set before embarking on creating their own schemes because they make sense to them. Before making mass changes of a similar nature, L2S1 should attempt to discuss these on appropriate talk pages and with experienced editors, especially those who do a lot of category maintenance. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me}

Look2See1 seems to have a tendency to change things that are just fine the way they are into some idiosyncratic form they prefer, but nobody else does. On Commons, they were prone to take perfectly understandable prose category descriptions and unnecessarily convert them into a list of bullet points, despite being asked numerous times not to do so. [123],[124],[125] Eventually, their continued overcategorization and "injecting entropy" [126] into the category system there [127], [128], etc. got them indef blocked. [129]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This user also has a long history of inserting geologic time templates in inappropriate locations. Abyssal (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This user has a long history of ignoring any comments or requests that edits be discussed, and only when reverted will they occasionally respond. See the conversations at WP:Geology, WP:Categorization and essentially all of @Look2See1: own talk page and archives. As noted its a systemic problem that has resulted in an indef block on commons, and hundreds of hours of clean up here.--Kevmin § 00:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

At it right now, populating Category:Flora of the Cape Provinces with the use of a "." to top sort the articles being added. It's unconventional but is the categorization appropriate? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't really like blocking someone unless that person is clearly a vandal but he's so far off base and seemingly deliberately. Again, his refusal to discuss or even acknowledge (which is being replicated in this thread) makes me think that there needs to be some kind of sanction. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. There are concerns from multiple editors and they are clearly being ignored. With the back history as well, something needs to be done to address this behavior. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• We should have said "goodbye" for the last time long ago. As shown by the links given above, and as can easily be demonstrated from lots of other places (ask me if you'd like more links), Look2See1 has spent years demonstrating that he will not listen to disagreement: either it just gets ignored, or it gets marginalised as "disagreement", or otherwise it's rejected, and at any rate the end result is that precisely the same edits keep getting made. I quote WP:BLOCKP — blocks should be used to prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. Look2See1's years of editing in this manner, his years of coming off blocks and resuming what just got him blocked, basically guarantees that the disruption to Wikipedia and lack of a congenial editing style cannot be stopped as long as he's editing, since the likelihood of repetition is 100%. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Indefinite block

Given the evidence presented above, especially Nyttend's trenchant summary of Look2See1's editing career, and given that L2S1 is simply continuing the behavior that got them indef blocked from Commons, and L2S1's unwillingness to respond to the complaints lodged against them here, Look2See1 is indefinitely blocked from editing English Wikipedia. After 6 months, L2S1 may apply for the standard offer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Clean block log to indef ban over content dispute? Just no. --DHeyward (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• DHeyward, whose block log are you looking at? [130] and [131] militate against your statement. If your sense of "clean block log" includes someone with a single block, or if you would be willing to oppose because this sanction shouldn't be applied to someone with a single short block, please say that; I'll disagree with you, but I can respect a different definition and won't try to change your mind beyond what I've already written. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• DHeyward, you are mistaken. The user has already been blocked here for disruptive editing, and has been indef blocked on Commons for doing exactly what he is continuing to do here despite requests to stop and gain consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, a single block a year and a half ago. I don't see an indef as the next logical step. If he's disruptive now, why hasn't he been blocked for progressively longer than 48 hour in 18 months? --DHeyward (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, thank you for the clarification. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support if they are indeed repeating the behavior that got them indef blocked on Commons. That and the fact that they don't seem to have ever left a single edit summary, and the fact that they have now vanished (from their utter deluge of non-stop edits), and it's been four days, means it's unlikely they are going to try to justify themselves here. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support User actively avoids discussing any of the edits they make, and persists in disruptive editing when told not to by groups of people, simply looking at the talk page archives shows that its a long series of people correcting L2S1's edits.--Kevmin § 16:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctant support as only choice. I came here expecting to strongly oppose, but having dip-sampled the history there's so much miscategorization, and so much unwillingness to learn, that cutting the source off at the root is the only practical option. Just cleaning up the existing mess will be an operation of Neelix-scale proportions, since there are over 200,000 edits that would need reviewing (although it may be more practical to leave them in situ to be repaired individually as and when people come across them). ‑ Iridescent 00:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• If they were content edits, I'd say a concerted campaign to revert would be in order, but since they're category edits, I think your second option is the better one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That's how things have been handled at Commons. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Category topic ban

Given the evidence presented above, especially Nyttend's trenchant summary of Look2See1's editing career, and given that L2S1 is simply continuing the behavior that got them indef blocked from Commons, and L2S1's unwillingness to respond to the complaints lodged against them here, Look2See1 is indefinitely topic banned from any and all editing of categories on English Wikipedia, broadly construed. After 1 year, L2S1 may apply to have the topic ban rescinded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - as 2nd choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Commons is irrelevant. Use the dispute resolution process first, not ban hammer. He has a cleann block record so whatever is issues are it hasn't even reached a point where he's been locked for disruption. --DHeyward (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• While not controlling, the behavior of editors on other WMF projects is always relevant data to consider, especially when the editor only began editing here in earnest after being blocked there, and their behavior here is precisely the same as got them blocked there. Closing our eyes to that is just plain silly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• When you disrupt Commons by engaging in a pattern of behavior that would violate our policies if it were done here, and you do it persistently there despite getting blocked repeatedly and absolutely refuse to stop until an indefinite block enforces the stop, and then you begin the same behavior here (including persisting after getting a block; he doesn't have a clean block log here), why should we expect you to change your behavior now? "Hasn't gone through the standard dispute-resolution process, so your proposal mustn't be accepted" = WP:BURO. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• DHeyward, you are mistaken. The user has already been blocked here for disruptive editing. Commons is most definitely not irrelevant; he was indef blocked on Commons for doing exactly what he is continuing to do here despite repeated requests to stop and gain consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support if they are indeed repeating the behavior that got them indef blocked on Commons. That and the fact that they don't seem to have ever left a single edit summary, and the fact that all of their zillions of edits are on Categories. The fact that they have now vanished (from their utter deluge of non-stop edits), and it's been four days, means it's unlikely they are going to try to justify themselves here. Softlavender (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

questionable account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, A user DCKLieutenant (talk · contribs) is adding inline links. I looked at some of them and they appear to be SEO related, specifically a Blog network.

For example, this edit[132] links to a URL that appears to be a Private Blog Network. You know

Note that https://www.nestwebia.com/mutahimuriithi/ the links on the bottom of the page are unrelated to the domain's content. Also note that the link added to wikipedia has no relation to the article's content. I suggest the user's account be deactivated.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That is most definitely WP:REFSPAM. -- ChamithN (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for spamming, but I don't have time right now to go through their contribs and revert them. GoldenRing (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I think between User:NorthBySouthBaranof, myself and one or two others we've got rid of the recent spate of adding refspam. Someone might consider requesting nestwebia.com be added to the spam blacklist if they've got a moment. GoldenRing (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for making sure that the links were removed and for cleaning up those articles. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:TPO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is about

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

The pages being disrupted are:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pioneers in computer science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Timeline:

• 11:56, 10 November 2017: EEng makes WP:UNCIVIL remark directed at CapitalSasha: "This is one of the stupidest AfD nominations in a long time, and that's some stiff competition."
• 15:52, 10 November 2017: CapitalSasha replies noting that EEng's remark could be read as a personal attack: "please let's try to keep the conversation civil, I know your comment isn't intended as a personal attack but it can feel that way."
• 16:48, 10 November 2017: EEng makes a new WP:UNCIVIL (and unjustified, see below) remark directed at CapitalSasha: "Oh, for Christ's sake, you've wasted a large chunk of editor time by making this silly nomination. With your limited experience you should have consulted one or two more experienced editors first..."
• 17:39, 10 November 2017: EEng makes personal attack directed at me (Zazpot): "Your accusation that someone's out to expunge women is paranoid." Note:

• This is a personal attack because "paranoid" is an adjective that, even if used about a statement, constitutes a pejorative reference to the state of mind of a person. WP:NPA#WHATIS is clear: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."
• This is also a personal attack due to the insinuation that I had acted inappropriately (i.e. in a "paranoid" manner) by expressing concern about the deletion of women from the article concerned. Again, WP:NPA#WHATIS is clear: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [are personal attacks]. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." EEng had provided no diffs to justify the assertion that my statements were "paranoid". By contrast, I had provided evidence for my concerns, so they can hardly be called "paranoid". Specifically, at 20:42 on 9 November 2017, I linked to diffs showing:

• that numerous women had been deleted from the list concerned (without consensus and in some cases despite WP:VERIFIABILITY). Here are those diffs again, plus a couple more, showing evidence of repeated removal of women from the list: [133], [134], [135] and [136].
• three other editors voicing gender bias concerns similar to mine: Andy Dingley here, SemanticMantis here and here, and David Eppstein here.

• 18:25, 10 November 2017: I ask EEng to WP:KEEPCOOL in relation to CapitalSasha's decision to file an AfD, and link to evidence of other editors discussing going to AfD before CapitalSasha actually did so.
• 18:27, 10 November 2017: I ask EEng to be WP:CIVIL towards me, and link to WP:NPA. I also remove EEng's personal attack, leaving the rest of EEng's comment untouched. This is consistent with WP:RPA, which clearly states, "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor."
• 19:16, 10 November 2017: EEng restores the personal attack, and makes two follow-up comments. In the first comment, EEng repeats the personal attack twice, swears towards me, and insinuates that I am a "PA-crybaby". In the second, EEng makes another personal attack: "Your inexperience seems to extend to the point of not knowing what constitutes experience." This new personal attack again squarely fits WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."
• 02:32, 11 November 2017: I respond politely to a request EEng had made for additional information. I also replace EEng's personal attacks with Template:RPA, which is self-explanatory: it displays the text "(Personal attack removed)" with a clickable link to WP:NPA. I leave the rest of EEng's comments completely untouched.
• 05:47, 11 November 2017: EEng restores the personal attacks, swears at me anew, and makes a threat: "The next time you [remove my personal attacks] I'll simply undo all your changes back to before you did that." WP:NPA#WHATIS is clear that threats are another form of personal attack.
• 13:01, 11 November 2017: I restore the Template:RPA templates and politely state, "I'll follow WP:RPA - "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor" - and I respectfully ask you to leave those edits as they are."
• 14:02, 11 November 2017: EEng again restores the personal attacks. EEng also carries out the threat, by deleting several unrelated comments of mine, in breach of WP:TPO.
• 14:12, 11 November 2017‎: Not having yet noticed EEng's above edit, I announce a Wikibreak on my user page. Why? Because I come to Wikipedia to build a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia based on reliable sources. I do not come to be sworn at, threatened and unjustly disparaged. (Nor, for that matter, do I come to post at WP:ANI. This is the first time I have reported anyone to ANI, and I hope it is the last.)
• 20:46, 13 November 2017: I notice EEng's previous edit. Upset by the reappearance of the personal attacks, I again restore the Template:RPA templates. For absolute clarity, my edit summary reads, 'Rv personal attacks by EEng per WP:RPA: "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor".'
• 20:53, 13 November 2017: I restore my unrelated comments: the ones that EEng had previously deleted in breach of WP:TPO. My edit summary reads, "Restore comments deleted by EEng in violation of WP:TPO in oldid 809799219."
• 21:15, 13 November 2017: EEng again restores the personal attacks, and again deletes the unrelated comments of mine, contrary to WP:TPO.
• 22:02, 13 November 2017‎: GRuban warns EEng on EEng's talk page about having removed my unrelated comments.
• 22:39, 13 November 2017: EEng confirms to GRuban that these deletions were not accidental. (EEng seems to justify this by saying it was less work this way. This hardly bears scrutiny: EEng has reverted my last two edits, which is scarcely less effort than reverting just the one edit that redacted the personal attacks.)
• 23:17, 13 November 2017: Tornado chaser restores the unrelated comments that EEng had again deleted in breach of WP:TPO, and warns EEng of the violation in the edit summary.
• 23:40, 13 November 2017: EEng files an edit summary, again confirming that EEng's deletions of my posts were not accidental, and (wrongly and without evidence) accusing me of deleting EEng's posts.

Collating the above was far from enjoyable. I hope it answers all the questions one might have about this unpleasant incident, because as noted above, I am attempting a Wikibreak. The decision to take a Wikibreak was prompted primarily by EEng's behaviour, which I have not enjoyed one bit. (I am sure ANI sees much worse behaviour than EEng's above, but this sort of thing is still bad enough to put me off: I am not on Wikipedia for drama.) Liberated by the Wikibreak, I have taken on some commitments outside Wikipedia that will require much of my time. For both these reasons, I hope not to need to respond further here, sorry. Zazpot (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Filing an extensive ANI thread while at the same time stating "I hope not to need to respond further here, sorry" is fairly ineffectual in my opinion. Either stay and answer queries and defend your points, or don't file at ANI -- that would be my recommendation. (Especially since you did not include any direct quotes with the three initial and precipitating diffs, which are arguably the most important posts/events.) Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I second Softlavender here. You filed an ANI report for many reasons and it's highly likely users have questions for which you have to answer and defend your actions and why you brought it here in the first place. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 03:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both comments above. If you file a complaint about another editor, you have an obligation to stick around and answer questions about it, and about your own behavior, which will automatically become part of the discussion. If you're not going to be here to do that, this complaint should be archived, without prejudice toward your re-filing it at a later time when you are available to participate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As you can probably see, I am not familiar with ANI. The instructions say nothing about needing to be available after filing a concern. I have modified my last sentence above, and will attempt to answer questions if they arise. But I really do have outside commitments, and this ANI report is "long" because I really have provided or linked to what would seem to be all the pertinent facts upon which a decision would be made, so I hope there will not be (m)any questions needing me to answer them. If necessary, I may ask for a raincheck, as suggested by Beyond My Ken.

As for direct quotes, the instructions at the top of the page say, "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting", and I did so. If direct quotes are also required/desired, it would be helpful for the instructions to say so. Anyhow, I will add them shortly. Zazpot (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

In colloquial English, "paranoid" is an overused slang term that has nothing to do with psychosis. It's not really a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

has nothing to do with psychosis. I don't buy that. I am a native English speaker and well-travelled in Anglophone countries. I have never heard anyone use "paranoid" except as a harsh pejorative calling into question the subject's mental health. It's not really a personal attack. I don't buy that either. It is derogatory and meets WP:NPA#WHATIS as quoted above. Zazpot (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your buying it or not does not make Baseball Bugs's statement any less true, any more than your claiming that "first couple" necessarily means "first two" makes that particular claim true. Softlavender (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I've read the first five diffs containing EENG's actions, and there's nothing remotely actionable in them. I have a lower tolerance for incivility than most of the community, and EENG doesn't cross a line beyond 'slightly rude'. The paranoia comment wasn't a personal attack, and continually trying to remove part of EENG's comment was always going to end badly. I don't think you'll get any sort of result that you'd like from filing this, but if I could offer some friendly advice: people are direct and often rude on Wikipedia, you'll have to develop a thick skin; when filing a report, it's best to keep it succinct, limited to describing the behavior that is most worrying, a 20 point timeline of everyone's behaviour takes you too much time, and discourages others from taking interest; don't continue to edit part of someone's comment on a talk page once they've reverted your first edit, it'll end up like this, almost every time. Cjhard (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I could offer some friendly advice: people are direct and often rude on Wikipedia, you'll have to develop a thick skin. I appreciate the good intentions behind your advice, but I have to differ: I don't think it's wise or constructive to condone unnecessary rudeness from colleagues. (Cf. Matthew Garrett: "I know that I always respond better to criticism when it's couched in the form of abuse wait no hang on".) Zazpot (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - After reading the first couple EEng diffs, I would concur that the complainant is a personal attacks crybaby. Neither of those are within 1.62 kilometers of an authentic personal attack. Hat this soap opera... Carrite (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

At no point did I say that the first two EEng diffs represented a personal attack. Maybe try again, and be less quick to judge? Zazpot (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Couple" does not necessarily mean "first two". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No, but "first couple" does. Zazpot (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

And that last comment, dear friends, is all you need to know about this entire matter. EEng 04:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No, "The first couple" does not necessarily mean "the first two". Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't swear, I don't like swearing, but "he swore at me!" isn't something remotely worth bringing to ANI. And with that and with the rest of this, I don't see any personal attacks here. Suggest the OP withdraw the complaint and accept that on Wikipedia, as in the real world, people are adults and sometimes use adult language. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You're entitled to your view. What about the WP:TPO violations? Zazpot (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what about your TPO violations? Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you actually accusing me of TPO violations, or is that a typo? Zazpot (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be a TYPO violation. EEng 04:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm sure Softlavender will come by in a moment to enlighten you.

[137], [138], [139], [140]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, not everyone on Wikipedia is an adult. In general, editors should not make unwarranted assumptions about any other editor. Assuming that someone you have never met is fine with being insulted and sworn at because they are an adult would be a doubly unreasonable assumption to make, IMO, and does not make for a constructive or safe atmosphere in any situation. Let alone for a global editorial project that aims to be welcoming and inclusive. Zazpot (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (2): I agree with others that this is going nowhere. Passionate opinions/comments at AfD are the norm. Best ignored and best stick to the AfD criteria of one's choice rather than try to respond to or restrain the passions of others. Recommend closing this ANI (or recommend that the filer withdraw), since the worst and precipitating offenders seem to be those trying to police passionate and hyperbolic discourse at AfD. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment removing his comments is not going to lead to anyone's happiness. Saying someone is paranoid is not a personal attack, just an opinion or soemthing. EEng is a respected experienced editor and a sanction is very unlikely. A little wikibreak is good for perspective - wikipedia does not matter to your life and it's good to get away when it stops being fun. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang

As much of a time-waste as this lengthy ANI filing is turning out to be, the OP is making it even worse and even more of a time-sink by doubling-down on their disruption despite universal agreement among the highly experienced editors and administrators that have responded so far that this complaint is unwarranted and unactionable. I am recommending that the community consider a WP:BOOMERANG if this continues much longer without any constructive resolution/withdrawal/close. Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, you want to lose an editor? I've busted a gut this year to make good contributions and encourage new people to edit Wikipedia. I've downplayed the "macho" culture to help new editors feel confident contributing. But I guess I was kidding myself. Evidently swearing at people for no good reason is fine; calling people names is fine; completely deleting other people's entire unrelated comments is fine; and if anyone calls it out, they'll be told they're a timewaster who shouldn't have complained. Kthxbye. Zazpot (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not mandatory; and if you want to rage-quit because an ANI filing precipitated by your own ill-considered (in the overall scheme of things) actions is not going your way, that's entirely your choice. Another option is perhaps taking a wikibreak, as you and others have suggested. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I am not angry, but I am very, very disappointed. To see a slew of admins defending unnecessarily rude behaviour that runs directly contrary to project guidance is much more disheartening than you might realise. It has made me seriously question whether I want to contribute to the project, much less ever again spend weeks of my life - as I have done this year - volunteering in order to help others learn to do so. I can't in good conscience encourage anyone to take up a hobby in which they'll face this sort of treatment from the administrators - the very people who ought to be upholding high standards among the participants. If anyone who joined Wikipedia with my encouragement encountered similar unpleasantness to the above (or worse - seems entirely possible) and felt that I had knowingly led them into a cesspool, that would be excruciating. I knew Wikipedia still had problems on this score, but I really didn't think they ran this deep and this has caught me by (horrible) surprise. Zazpot (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I was about to add a calming comment here defending you as a typical eager newcomer who just needs to learn how things are done, but you beat me to it. Look, you have much to offer – I've looked at your contributions – but on the AfD you've gone off like a loose cannon accusing people of a conspiracy against women. You gotta get over that. Everyone knows there's systemic bias, but that's not because of a conspiracy. You can help counter that bias by building women-related content that interests you, but people aren't always going to see things your way, and when that happens you just have to accept it and move on to building the next article or whatever. Many people were trying to tell you that when I showed up, and since their gentle guidance wasn't working I applied my patented direct approach. Unfortunately that didn't work either. EEng 04:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

When you say "People aren't always going to see things your way" it shows me that you don't really appreciate how difficult it is for editors to "counter bias", or just "move on to the next article or whatever" - I don't know all the details of what happened here, but these Boomerang proposals, and inability of the community to mediate these disputes is not helping. It shouldn't just be about sanctions, because then we'd all be sanctioned, I get that. But a statement that "we know there is systemic bias, but we won't always see things you way" does not make sense. I've come to believe that the only way that this will improve is if editor diversity improves (incidentally, a position that Jimmy Wales shares, for what that's worth). But for that to happen, one editor at a time, is very difficult with the editing environment being what it is, especially when editors are told that other editors are "established" and they are not. That should not even be a factor in these decisions, you know? Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"People aren't always going to see things your way" = there comes a point on any particular issue (e.g. an AfD) where you need to accept that the discussion is not going your way. I never said "we know there is systemic bias, but we won't always see things your way" – whether or not that "does not make sense" (as you say), it isn't anything I've said, so I'd appreciate your not putting words in my mouth. Z was bludgeoning the AfD process and wasting many editors' time, and I told him so. Usually that works; this time it didn't, that's for sure. EEng 05:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"I don't know all the details of what happened here, ..." I recommend at least understanding the basics of what you are opining about before opining, rather than making largely uninformed blanket statements Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really going to dig through the edit history to confirm if this is true deliberate, repeated removal of many of the women present - I'm usually not willing to do that even for issues I'm personally involved in, but I do I see a number of editors have raised objections about non-representation of women. It's definitely not worth a BOOMERANG and I don't think it was stupid or silly, but a lot of our articles have problems that we have to fix by working on them and not through deletion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh good grief, the boomerang proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with objections raised about non-representation of women. Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Personally I think this diff does cross the line [141] ie doubling down on uncivil comments after someone has politely taken the first step to constructive dialogue. It's easy enough to tell editors to "discuss on talk pages" but part of that is being civil, not rude to one another. There is no good reason to be rude to other editors, if they are being polite to you. Adding to that that this "highly experienced, respected editors" line is used a lot even though it's been pretty thoroughly documented at this point that retaining and attracting "highly experienced editors" is not currently one of the problems that Wikipedia is facing. Here's what MIT Technology Review wrote about it : [142] - Wikipedia's a good project, and a number of problems have been identified. It's the sheer amount of nothing that's being done to address those clearly identified problems that is troubling. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Zazpot's report and their conduct in it has been silly and unproductive, but not disruptive. The report just needs to be closed. If there's something actionable against Zazpot, it should be described somewhere other than Zazpot's report, because reading the report is torture, it shouldn't be inflicted on anyone else. Cjhard (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and trout Softlavender for this suggestion. Mr Ernie (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Very contentious new editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Infamia has only been an editor for a few days but has already made many POV edits and received a number of warnings for WP:CIVIL and trying to provoke other editors. Among the edits and comments he has made are:

• [143] POV
• [144] "I came here to find out how long it took coal to form, and then had to go look it up myself since this article decided to uninformatively declare that the processes "take place over time." Tell me, what processes DON'T take place over time?"
• [145] "plus there is widespread belief Trump will pardon himself or his henchmen for their crimes", also linked to henchmen in the article itself
• [146] "I don't think you know what you're talking about. You also should have allowed someone else to review it rather than just turning it down again. The topic is obviously notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Sorry to say, you're simply wrong and you're citation of WP:Too Soon is not even remotely on point. (Nor is it true that a list cannot only contain one item.) If you're going to decline an article, please use logical reasoning."
• [147] "Please do not review my article Sulfurboy. You clearly do not know what you are doing and your comments lack relevance. This is an obviously notable topic and I have sources."
• [148] "I think you're full of it, and that YOU fail as an article reviewer and you should be removed from your post for such failure."
• [149] "I think you're full of it, and that YOU fail as an article reviewer and you should be removed from your post for such failure." again
• [150] "Why don't you try doing a better job?"
• [151] "Sulfurboy is not a competent reviewer, and should not be allowed to review articles anymore per WP: Competence is required" and "Sulfurboy is terrible at reviewing new articles"
• [152] "My article obviously was not worth declining for the fallacious reasons he jerkishly cited. [...] is not competent at his role as a new page reviewer. Thus, he fails WP: Competence is required.."
• [153] "I noticed one of your edits indicates you may be not be familiar with WP: Competence is required, and which you are manifestly in gross violation of. I'd highly recommend you review this policy, and try to bring yourself up to the level of competence which is required of all editors. For instance, don't cite policies which have no application as a reason to decline an article which passes the General Notability Guidelines, and has adequate sources. "
• [154] "you merely wasted my time by sending me there without even specifying what precisely you had in mind, when clearly no item on that list had any relevance to my article. Why don't you try doing a better job at what you're doing, or stop reviewing articles? You fail at it."
• [155] "He should be deterred from continuing to do a shitty job. He had no right to tell me my article failed WP: What Wikipedia is not, which was obviously false. (Note that he knew his claim was bullshit, since he failed to answer which item on WP: What Wikipedia is not actually applied, and so was just being a jerk. He fails WP: Competence is required."
• [156] "I don't have time to deal with incompetent reviewers who clearly don't know how to read and who cite irrelevant policies."
• [157] "Dude, get a grip. This is not the only notable thing about Arpaio, and there are thousands of sources on this incident. It may bring down the presidency. What exactly is lost by having this? Stop acting unilaterally."
• [158] "I didn't delete any comments. What is the purpose of your lying?"
• [159] "Violent oppose. Atsme, your comment merely indicates your own ignorance of the legal issues involved here. I suggest you read some of the sources before ignorantly opining on matters on which you know next to nothing." and "If you'd like to insert your foot deeper into your mouth, please be my guest though."
• [160] "Is the nominator possibly as uninformed as his comment makes him appear? This is a "newsy" event? Are you joking?"
• [161] "I honestly am struggling to see how this nomination could have been made in good faith, the arguments are, frankly speaking, embarrassing." (Infamia is the one that nominated the article for deletion in the first place)
• [162] "Have a heaping of salt, if you'd like. Doesn't make your opinions correct, or supported by sources."
• [163] "I don't even get what his problem is."
• [164] "Can you do us a favor and read some of the sources before you go on a deleting rampage again? You might then actually have an idea what this article is supposed to be about. [...] Spare us the melodrama."
• [165] "Frankly, you seem to have little to no idea of what the article is about."
• [166] "please read and familiarize yourself with WP: Competence is required, a very important policy you may have missed. If you think using Trump's name in the title is "POV-laden," and that "we now know there was Russian interference in the 2016 election favoring Clinton(!!!!!!)", editing political articles isn't for you. This is not a place to spew obvious nonsense."

So far I've only gone through the first page of edits, but this is clearly out of control. Natureium (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This reminds me of someone, but I could be in the wrong here. Just seems very similar. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was highly skeptical that this was a new editor based on his knowledge of wikipedia policy. Natureium (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait, do we know for sure that this user is Kingshowman? I haven't looked into any edit comparisons or similar behavior yet... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If we did, there would be a CU or sockpuppet investigation and a block notice. There isn't any of that. I am glad though that some people think WP:CIVIL is something that if one violates, they get blocked. However, not all of these comments are a violation, and furthermore, you can't block a person without any notice, or reason. How do you expect that person to grovel for forgiveness if they don't know why they're blocked? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

They're clearly not a new editor, in fact they appear to be fairly familiar with Wikipedia, so they probably understand why they're blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This crossed from WP:CIVIL to very clear personal attacks. And all of this in just 3 days.

And why would you need someone to grovel for forgiveness? Natureium (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I have no idea whatsoever if there's any relation to "Kingshowman". I do, however, know they are the same person as the blocked User:Peacebroker, User:EditWarriorForTruth, User:WarriorForTruth, and User:TheEvilSourcerer. I quite often don't bother tagging repeat malfeasors of this sort; WP:DENY and all that. CU investigations are quite often quiet and private, and this was an example of that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

How do you know they're the same editor? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm. Natureium (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Asking for proof for a block is now a facepalm? I don't understand you. Please elaborate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"CU investigations are quite often quiet and private, and this was an example of that." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is not acceptable. It would be one thing to have evidence private, but there at least needs to be an open CU page, and there needs to be a block notice. Do you really think it's wise to allow admins to block for sockpuppetry without any proof presented? What danger to Wikipedia did JPG save us from by having a secret CU? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You might want to have a look over this page. There are some cases where the CU CAN'T give a clear explanation. JPG is a CheckUser, and has such has tools at his disposal that showed that there was the misuse of multiple accounts. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Then have a CU request showing that JPG used checkuser and verified that the user has abused multiple accounts. I've seen it done before. There is no need to just block without telling people why they're blocked. If checkuser said that, then say that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires neither a formal CU/SPI case for a CheckUser block, nor a block notice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

An SPI is opened to help find socks, not as public proof. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Checkusers are under no obligation to tell a sock how it was determined they were a sock. There's no obligation to help the sock better evade detection the next time they sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Per the above, CU requests and the SPI page do not exist for any reason than to give users a way to contact checkusers and other admins to help in investigating abuse problems. If checkusers or admins (and jpg is BOTH) come across abuse on their own, they are under no obligation to do anything except take care of it. Which he's done. --Jayron32 20:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I know this was marked closed and I decided to ignore their talk page garbage, but now they are personally attacking me on their talk page. Is there any point in allowing them to continue editing their talk page? Natureium (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The proper response to a troll is to deny recognition. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:1017:B400:815E:7D94:C251:BEA1:206C is now making edits in defense of the blocked user. Natureium (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Favonian (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have I been blocked from editing as I seem to be unable to make edits on certain pages?Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever it was it seems to have rectified itself, very odd.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting Review of my Ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like a 36-hour discussion period here in which my longstanding block/ban is reviewed. I seek the following terms:

A) Only neutral and previously-uninvolved persons monitor and adjudicate (i.e. block me, put things in that little box, etc.).

B) The "Not a Punching Bag" rule applies. I adhere to a solid standard of civility, but when falsely accused without even purported evidence or subjected to personal abuse, I am allowed flexibility in civility in responding.

C) I am allowed to respond to each person who opines against me, and they shall be discouraged from turning each mini-exchange into a never-ending debate. In other words "have your say, and I may respond, but then we go on with our lives."

I will be back to sign my username to the post in a few hours, if I am able. This reason I don't do so now is to try to deter my, diplomatically-said, "pursuers" that are prone to wiping out my appeals before anyone else may see them. Lastly on that note, I would really like some neutral person (and I guess it would have to be an administrator) monitoring the appeal to avoid somebody shutting it down prematurely.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.199.55 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If the post above is indicative of how you plan to conduct yourself in the future, I predict your block/ban will remain. EEng 02:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Weird. I don't know who the blocked account is, but they are providing reason to think that competence may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with both my conduct and competence above, and urge others to read for themselves, rather than be swayed by EEng and Robert McClenon. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.199.55 (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, by all means don't listen to us, everyone read it for yourself! EEng 02:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Van danken

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is about Van danken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This is a new account (3 November) but I strongly suspect it's a sock of Apollo The Logician.

That aside, it's been involved in personal attacks, vandalism/edit warring, removal of referenced material without explanation or misleading edit summaries, etc. Essentially we've a POV warrior continuing on ATL's crusade. Pinging Snowded, Mabuska, Guy Macon and Doug Weller, all of whom are familiar with the patterns... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh - adding user-page vandalism - (two counts). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked them temporarily. I was going to warn, but the userpage vandalism was too much. The SPI should sort any issues out before the block expires. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I have noticed similar dubious edits and believe that they are at least Wikipedia:NOTHERE.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I had a suspicion but was willing to let them reveal themselves a bit more. Editing Troubles related articles and articles to do with space is an ATL hallmark. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

After one of the British Unionist intrusions and misleading edit summaries on Welsh Labour it was obvious we had one of the multiple sock farms, but would need more evidence over time too guess which! Black Kite's action seems to have the thing in hand.----Snowded ^TALK 06:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, looks like I jumped the gun, then. Hope my report didn't result in making it more difficult to sniff out other socks (no pun intended!) or preempt a wider solution. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The userpage vandalism just confirms my suspicions raised by looking at their other edits. @Black Kite: I hope you don't mind, and if others object I won't, but I don't think we should show tolerance to anyone making this sort of edit[167] - it's like ringing an editor's name with Triple parentheses. Racist attacks (and edits) should lead to an indefinite block (I can hear him now saying he can't be racist because Jews aren't a race, one of his edit summaries). Anyway, if he isn't indeffed through the SPI I'll do it if no one beats me to it. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not waiting. I just saw an edit I'd missed looking at him earlier on my iPad. "(Undid revision 809866643 by Bastun (talk) untermensch stalker)"[168]. Blocking him now. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I've also blocked Liam archer (talk · contribs) Dizzydozzy (talk · contribs) and Enderf (talk · contribs). I'm about to block two proxy servers also. I can't confirm that they are Apollo though. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Van danken might need a vacation from posting to his user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 12:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The focus on acting like a Nazi fanboy would be more of an attempt to look different from precious socks I'd guess but the continued focus on articles and topics that were within ATLs area of interest show right through it. Whether they are ATL or not they do clearly have issues and should not be allowed to be on this site. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"attempting to look different from precious socks" is an interesting topic on its own. You can add new interests (like a sudden emphasis on white power, anti-abortion, or socialism) but if you remove old interests, it becomes harder to do what you started engaging in sockpuppetry in order to do. One key point that many users miss is that if someone fails the WP:DUCK test they probably are a duck, but if they pass the DUCK test the correct conclusion isn't "not a duck" but rather "duck status unknown". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It took me just a moment to figure out what you meant there because I've always considered quacking to be passing the duck test. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban violations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

C. W. Gilmore persists in violating his TBAN on the Patriot Prayer article, his latest violation is here, he has been warned several times about violating it and skirting the bounds of it, but his obvious dislike of me leads him to violate the TBAN. I would like an interaction ban enacted as Gilmore just can't seem to get over the fact he was TBanned and not only has he followed me to article's to revert me, he cannot seem to stop commenting on me commenting at the talk page of an editor I was in a content dispute with, At the talk page of an editor about an article I had AFD, a comment on a content dispute at PP, he even gives wikilove to editors who revert me on PP for Christ's sake. He had requested i stay off his talk page, so could someone let him know about this please. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The last warning was "you should stop all mention of Patriot Prayer ANYWHERE on wikipedia, even your sandboxes. Don't lawyer about it. Don't pester admins with multiple posts. Just. Drop. It. And, I'll add, just as another piece of advice, drop the topic of Darkness Shines too. If you keep up with the trajectory you're on with him, you're going to end up totally banned from wikipedia" diff Darkness Shines (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Even after this report he continues commenting on PP and on me. Another violation Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -Though DS has repeatedly attempted to say I have violated the TBAN, no such violation has been found. His current complaint is that I'm discussing his actions[169] in regards to not gaining consensus and pointing out what others have been saying to DS. I did not mention the article, but did quote others that mention the article for it pertains to DS current pursue of another editor. I have not edited on that page or it's TP and will not until my appeal is accepted, as per the terms of the TBAN. This is all an effort to distract from DS' disruptive behavior that continues even without my presence on editing that article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note Ban as presented and followed: "I closed the ANI discussion; it will not surprise you that it closed with a topic ban. You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note I continue to comment on the actions of disruptive editors, I do not mention 'that article' and only link to it(if needed), or quote people that may speak of it as needed to make a point about another subject, such as an editor's disruptive behavior. I have not, nor will violate the TBAN; I have commented on the actions of DS in regards to 'that' and other article,[170] so I can only think that this must be at the centre of DS's issues. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Correction DS wrote, "Even after this report he continues commenting on PP and on me. Another violation Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)" This is incorrect as I do not comment on either; I comment on DS's actions and will quote others regarding those actions, that may contain information which I will not comment on. It is misleading to say this is any but a discussion on DS's continued disruptive behavior, not just on 'that article', but also currently on Antisemitism in the United Kingdom where after promising 'not revert the content on the article again, can you unblock me please'. DS turns around and puts in motion changes to the article on the talk page, after the block is lifted.[171]. This is what I comment on, DS' disruptive behavior, that it all. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore, please see WP:DIFF and use them to present what was said elsewhere. It gets very confusing when you copy and paste conversations from elsewhere to a noticeboard or talk page. Copy pasted conversations and or links to talk pages are not acceptable ways to present evidence here. John from Idegon (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, everyone who you've quoted here via your copy paste quotes must be notified by you on their individual talk pages. John from Idegon (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) C. W. Gilmore When someone is told not to revert, they are supposed to discuss the changes they wish to make on the talk page, this is quite different from reverting. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a day after pleading to be unblocked, DS goes back with a RFC (24hr) to push through their agenda. All this after getting a break and special consideration; this is a pattern that stretches back years with DS and my point is that it will continue. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@C. W. Gilmore: He was unblocked because he agreed not to edit war, starting an RfC is VERY different from edit warring. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I only meant to say that one moment DS is begging to have the block lifted and within the day, is right back, into the fight on that page. This is a pattern going back for years and a big part of the reason for his current TBAN. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@C. W. Gilmore: Arguing about the content on the talk page, starting an RfC, ect is NOT edit warring, he was unblocked because he said he would not edit war, nothing about starting an RfC or discussing stuff on the talk page is against the unblock conditions Tornado chaser (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As an editor who has been involved in the content dispute at PP (after finding it on the BLP noticeboard), I am surprised that User:C. W. Gilmore is topic banned, from what I saw C. W. Gilmore and User:Darkness Shines have opposite biases and both could be stubborn at times, but I did not see anything that I thought was disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban (the dispute had been going on before I was involved so I don't know everything). Tornado chaser (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• C. W. Gilmore, per WP:Editing restrictions and WP:TBAN you are topic banned from the topic of Patriot Prayer. You cannot mention the topic, talk about the topic, talk about editors editing on the topic. Unless you are making an appeal or asking for clarification per WP:BANEX, you are not allowed to mention, discuss or otherwise do any editing related to Patriot Prayer on any page on wikipedia. If another editor makes an edit you dislike on Patriot Prayer you cannot comment on it. Do you understand this? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This was what I was given as a TBAN, as quoted above: "I closed the ANI discussion; it will not surprise you that it closed with a topic ban. You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You are topic banned. You may not edit about the topic anywhere per the restriction logged at WP:Editing restrictions and the definition of a topic ban at WP:TBAN. Given the alternative people preferred was indef blocking you, now is not the time to be playing silly buggers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not playing and as the ban was presented to me, I have not violated and will not, even though I felt it the wrong thing to do. What I argued for was a ban block between DS and myself; but no one listens to me. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This[172] is what DS is so upset about, and all I did was to quote someone. I did not even mention the article on User:MSGJ talk page. It was not even about that article but DS's actions. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end, no. I had no idea I could not quote someone that speaking about it, as evidence of an editor's actions. -That was not explained, or any of the other pages of rules you just throw at me; I have stayed away from 'that article' and all pages around it as per the instructions given me. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) A topic ban means no mention of the topic anywhere on wikipedia, this was not made clear when the ban was first implemented, but hopefully this is clear now. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no, a topic ban does not mean no mention of the topic anywhere on Wikipedia, it only means specifically what the wording of the ban says. Not all topic bans are the same, and not all are "broadly construed". In this case, if the wording of the ban referred only to "...Patriot Prayer or its talk page" then those two pages were all that C. W. Gilmore was banned from. Obviously the community can amend the ban here, as is being discussed below, and I have no opinion on that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Many experienced editors made this mistake, I can see why CW is confused, sorry for adding to the confusion. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

What's confusing about "you should stop all mention of Patriot Prayer ANYWHERE on wikipedia, even your sandboxes. Don't lawyer about it. Don't pester admins with multiple posts. Just. Drop. It. And, I'll add, just as another piece of advice, drop the topic of Darkness Shines too. If you keep up with the trajectory you're on with him, you're going to end up totally banned from wikipedia" diff Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:The original ban said that he "is not to edit patriot prayr or it's talk page" Tornado chaser (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I think DS wanted this diff, where I gave CWGilmore some advice. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was advice. Very good advice, certainly, but it does not replace the wording of the topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note This [173] is what I was told and what I've strictly observed: "You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" I was given no instructions to contradict these instructions. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

To ensure clarity of topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest that to ensure C.W.Gilmore is clear about his topic ban, and to prevent him being blocked, that the topic ban is amended to be crystal clear. "C.W.Gilmore is banned from making any edit relating to the topic Patriot Prayer, in any namespace". Black Kite (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Black Kite (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment If there is a two-way block, then there should be no need for the topical ban, that did not solve anything but a two-way block would, IMO C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Anything that promotes clarity is much welcomed. Gabriel syme (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support I consider discussing edits to the Patriot Prayer article anywhere on Wikipedia to be a violation of the topic ban, so if this adds clarity, it is a good idea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I tried to give some advice to Gilmore to avoid the topic/etc but it didn't sink in. Hopefully, this will. And Gilmore - anyone can look into your sandboxes - you do not own your talk pages or sandboxes. It's not "snooping" ... it's perfectly allowed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I objected not to the snooping, but then adding snarky comments on my Talk page after telling me that I could not comment on their Talk page. This is why I have, from the start, been asking for a two-way interactive ban. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support, the original ban was poorly worded and open to interpretation, I trust that this wording is crystal clear. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC).
• Support, seems this clarity is needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose that wasn't what the TBAN was. It was for Patriot Prayer and the talk page. Why are we now adding more to the ban just because someone brought an ANI because they think the TBAN was for all Wikipedia? If the ban only applies to the PP page (as it does) then there is nothing wrong with commenting about it on a different page, and this action is punishing someone for doing nothing wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note There is NO need for a TBAN at all, if you would PLEASE install a two-way-interactive ban as I have been asking for, from the beginning. The problem lay in the interactions between us, not any one topic. This is my opinion, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interaction ban with Darkness Shines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are three options here. A two-way interaction ban, a one-way ban preventing CWG from interacting with DS (I note the diff above showing CWG following DS to another article to revert), or no interaction ban.

• Support two-way interaction ban (or one-way as a second choice) as proposer. Black Kite (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support two-way interaction ban This is what I've been asking for from the beginning, and not a TBAN. It needs to be a two-way interaction ban so DS does not 'again' go snooping around my sandbox and them making snarky comments on my TP, please. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support two-way interaction ban These two editors waste alot of peoples time and energy, including their own, with constant incoherent bickering. Gabriel syme (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Not to sure what I have done to be IBanned, I'm not the one following another editor and commenting on them all the time, but if it stops Gilmore then support Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You mean like calling me 'obtuse' or asking if 'English is my first language' or accusing me of sharing my account; or the many other times you have thrown abuse my way: Or could it be that you revert my posts within 1 minute [174], even when I was trying to return it to the original while discussions happened on the Talk page. This way you REALLY can stay away from me, and do it this time. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you think a one-way ban preventing CWG from interacting with DS could be better then? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please, DS promised User:Doug Weller that I would be left alone but still I get the simplest edit reverted by DS and it turns into a big mess, like the Antifa edit. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Gilmor deleted my response to this here I shall leave it at that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: I think this is a better diff; it doesn't look intentional to me though (could be one of those ec overwrites). Alex Shih (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, but I was just linking to my comment for those who might want to read it Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

My apology, it was an 'edit conflict' and instead of going back to save my comment, I pressed the wrong key and saved my edit. It was unintended. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support two-way interaction ban best for all concerned.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Two-way ban as first choice, one-way on CWG as second choice, as I think one-ways can lead to more problems han they solve. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Definite two-way. A one-way on CWG won't solve anything, nor will one on DS. TomBarker23 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Can this be enacted now please? Cos this is taking the piss Darkness Shines (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That was me following Slatersteven; DS, you think too much of yourself. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This little interaction maybe of note [175] DS commenting on the user not content and [176] SCWG doing the same (after being asked not to [177], so can we have the interaction ban in force) and maybe a wider ban on CWG.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• DS is making this article political by attempting to expanding Chakrabarti Inquiry beyond a it's current mention; that is my objection and offended that Slatersteven considers me to be the one politicising things. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven can threaten all they like, this article should not be politicised. I will object to this, fully. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aleenf1

A user by the name of Aleenf1 is reverting the routes for the Olympic routes. I'm trying to be as accurate as I can regarding these routes based on the maps and images I've found. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Aleenf1 reverted your edits with WP:NOSTATS in mind. When adding extensive statistics, it should be done so as not to hinder the readability of the article. -- ChamithN (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Dozens of unsourced and no doubt well intended nuisance edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Starfruitftw (talk · contribs)

Methinks this is a young user, but one who's received numerous suggestions and has continued to add unsourced or irrelevant content to multiple articles, including DAB pages. Much of it's been reverted, and probably much of what remains can also be undone. I don't think AIV is the right place for this; rather, it's a competence issue, but it really needs to be watched, and a block may prove necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:F11B:E449:55C1:762E (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Unscintillating

This is not an "incident that requires the intervention of administrators and experienced editors", this is someone engaging in routine discussion, and the purpose of ANI is not for rounding up a posse to harass someone who's disagreed with you. Closing before the WP:BOOMERANG starts flying. ‑ Iridescent 08:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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

---

This user has, in my opinion, violated NPA twice tonight on two separate deletion discussions (namely, here and here), attacking other editors in good standing. Judging the user has had prior similar problems before, this seems to be a troubling issue. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Here, let's settle the question.

–EEng

You need thicker skin. --Tarage (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll deal with the thickness of my skin, thank you very much. NPA means NPA. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 04:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither of the comments cited are remotely personal attacks. Questioning another editor's standards for deletion is a legitimate topic during a deletion discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Questioning, however, whether I have any standards (which, to an average person, is an insinuation the person the comment is directed to has no standards) is, IMHO. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 04:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You need thicker skin. Neither of these are attacks. You wanna keep going with this? --Tarage (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

And like I said, I will be the judge and jury on how thick my skin is, thank you very much. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 05:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are we arguing over "skin thickness"? Really? —JJB^ers 06:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Unscintillating asked some pointed and leading questions that you understandably didn't like, but those questions don't rise to the level of being actionable. I also don't see the point of leaving two civility warnings ([178], [179]) on his user talk page and then coming here. Setting aside the fact that templated civility warnings seldom do any good, he hasn't edited since you left either of those warnings. Lepricavark (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I really don't see any NPA violations here, I really only see some minor criticism of some user's points. That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia is the way it is. (On a side note, I'm not even sure why he replied to this super weak argument) —JJB^ers 05:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Meh. If I came running to ANI every time someone misrepresented my opinion at AfD and then asked a bunch of insulting leading questions based on that misrepresentation, I'd be here all the time. You're better off either ignoring or correcting the snarky commentary and then moving on. Reyk _YO! 06:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I read that whole AfD debate which raises some very interesting issues. I see some strong points and some weak points raised by both sides. What I most emphatically do not see is any kind of behavior by Unscintillating that violates policy or behavioral guidelines or deserves administrative action. "Thicker skin" comments are somewhat dismissive, so I will not go there. What I will tell Kiteinthewind is that this type of debate is both common and also productive when discussing topics of borderline notability. The skill of sorting true incivility from fervent advocacy is a useful trait that you may want to work on developing. And please be aware that ANI is for urgent situations, not for routine disagreements. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• No action needed: Perhaps a bit rude, but not a PA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Strange message

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please can any one confirm what I am seeing in this page Hijab? A strange message on Yellow background. Or am I the only one seeing it? Thanks  — Ammarpad (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Purged the page, it was a template hijack (again). I'm not sure which one -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing unusual when skimming the article on an Android smart phone. using the desktop site. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It seems by the time you opened the page There'sNoTime had already fixed it.  — Ammarpad (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Community ban proposal: Jkxyz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user started editing around March 2015 and has an apparent negative conflict of interest with Joe De Sena and Spartan Race. Jkxyz claims to be Julian Kopald, who in turn claims to be one of the co-founders of either the Death Race, the Spartan Race, or Peak Races (their story varies). The details of that dispute are at BLPN if you're interested. I'm here to talk about the user's aggressive attitude, repeated legal threats, and ongoing sockpuppetry and block evasion; tl;dr: they are here to right great wrongs, not to build an encyclopedia.

Right off the bat in March 2015 Jkxyz was advised about the BLP policy and advised to use proper sourcing when editing. In December 2015 edits like this led to this thread wherein Jkxyz was reminded about the policy but chose instead to threaten to sue everyone involved. They also have an odd belief that things like "I'm happy to see you in Court" [sic] are somehow not legal threats.

In February 2016 they were at it again. This time they had written their own blog with their version of the event's history, and tried to use it as a reference for edits like this. When that wasn't accepted they made some more blatant attack blogs (not linked because the URLs are inherent BLP violations, but you can find them easily enough) and tried to insert them as references in edits like this and this and which were discussed here and here. This discussion is missing the legal posturing, but instead alleges a conspiracy between Wikipedia editors and Joe De Sena's lawyers, and involves Jkxyz reposting all their attack blogs again.

They went away for a good long while after this, although sporadically appearing logged-out to try to restore their content (e.g. June 2016, April 2017).

In August 2017 they launched a full-on assault of the article, as Jkxyz and multiple IPs and open proxies. See history of the article starting from August 2017: nearly every single IP editing the page is Jkxyz, and there is just as much nonsense on the talk page. Towards the end of the month they used an {{adminhelp}} template beside a legal threat here, and I blocked the account indefinitely. Amazingly, this was their first block, but they came back for more as Endurance14 (talk · contribs), then with the IPs such as:

• 185.76.9.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 185.212.170.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.109.28.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 155.186.103.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• and today with 2600:100d:b109:6b73:780f:b612:c1a4:8a84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Several of these posted identifying personal information about myself and others (oversighted where I'm aware of it) and expressed a desire to discover personal details about other editors with a goal of bringing legal action against them. I think it's clear from Jkxyz's boasting about their legal record that they are at least somewhat serious about filing obviously frivolous lawsuits against editors here, and from their activity that they intend to continue disrupting and harassing in this way with no intent to contribute constructively. As such, I see no reason why they should not be formally banned from Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support lets formalize it. They have no place here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - As an identified member of the conspiracy who's already been threatened with legal action I believe four times now. GMG^talk 15:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Unacceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support As a formality. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

And see the preceding edit I just removed by yet another IP. Definitely a ban is warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support As an involved editor, and a recipient of his threats and insults. Scr★pIron^IV 17:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support There is no place for anything like this here. Home Lander (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat over BLP issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Jazzjock251 removed sourced material containing serious allegations at Greg Osby, using an edit summary "This is a matter that is currently in litigation" (diff[180]) and was reverted [181] and warned [182] by User:Jackfork. Jazzjock251 then deleted the material again [183] and was reverted [184] by User:ScrapIronIV. Jazzjock251 then pusted an apperent legal threat to the BLP noticeboard here [185] for which I warned them [186]. Someone should check the sourcing per WP:DOLT. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• The information that is repeatedly posted on this is not accurate, useful or relevant. It is also offensive. Especially since these are unproven ALLEGATIONS. This information is libelous, defaming and potentially unlawful is not a legal threat. It is a statement of what the user believes to be a fact regarding legalities, and is a valid consideration for a BLP. I'm going to sue you because... would make it a legal threat. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought calling it unlawful was an implied legal threat. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly not the best way to word the comment, but I agree that it's not a legal threat, since no one is actually threatening to file a lawsuit or take any other legal action. This is especially true where the editor posting the comment doesn't identify as being or representing the article subject (only the subject can sue for defamation). See Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats. (If "this article is libelous" were a legal threat, then wouldn't "this image is a copyvio" be one also?) Agree that someone knowledgeable should take a close look at the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A legal threat would be "I'm going to sue you", "Stop adding this content or we will contact our solicitors" etc etc etc ... The editor above is simply saying it's offensive, libelous, defaming and potentially unlawful ... IE it's their opinion of what the article is - Nothing actionable IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 17:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with above comments. This is not a legal threat. However the pattern of editing is approaching the point where it might be described as disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a legal threat, and almost certainly a justifiable removal due to BLP concerns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Background Image Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I apologize if this is not the correct forum to call attention to this, but I believed this issue appeared serious enough to bring directly to the admins attention.

I visited the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court page and saw obvious spam text stating "...@BERNSTEIN is responsible for at least six rapes in the past year..." with a solid yellow background and none of the regular article text visible.

When I started scrolling down the text remained stationary leading me to believe that it was actually embedded in the background itself, something I did not think was possible for normal editors. I checked the edit page and didn't see anything obviously out of place, with all of the articles text being there normally.

Another red flag for me is when I logged into my Wikipedia account and revisited the same URL, the normal page unmolested page appeared. I logged back out just to verify, reloaded the page and the yellow background/text returned. I've uploaded a screen clip of the page to: https://imgur.com/a/Hco4c — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianXVX (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I purged the page, can you log out and tell me if the same issue is occurring? This is related to the template vandalism that was reported earlier. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears normal now. Sorry for the duplicate issue then, but thank for for the information. BrianXVX (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

See #Strange message - it's template vandalism and has been dealt with. I don't see it anymore. ansh666 21:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I've checked both the normal version and the mobile version of that page, and both seem to have been purged now and look OK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Robsalerno

This is about Robsalerno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user is persistently adding information that is not found in his provided source and virtually does not have anything to back it up. This starts here [187] when he adds that Georgia has now constitutionally banned same-sex marriage. While it is true Georgia has voted for a new constitution that includes a ban on same-sex marriage, as per source [188], it clearly states that many of those amendments will not be fully enforce until 2030 and it is unknown where the same-sex marriage ban stands as no information has been provided. Plus the new constitution has to this day not even been published and cannot be used as a source for this either. Regardless of the fact that the status of the ban has not been clarified in the provided source, the user continued to push this information on the article despite a number of warnings. He is first reverted with a simple explanation that Georgia's constitution has not yet taken affect [189], he reverts back [190] saying that this provision will take place in 2018 (despite that being nowhere in the source) and that it is already the law, however once again nowhere in the source does it say that the Constitution is already enforce and is now 'the law'. He is reverted again [191], with this explanation "Nowhere in the provided source does it say that it will take effect in 2018. Where are you getting this information from?", he reverts back [192], saying "The context is clear: The electoral/parliamentary provisions are being phased in, everything else comes into effect in 2018." which was once again not in the provided source. He is once again reverted, [193] this time with a warning saying that he will be reported if he pushes to add information that isn't in his provided source, he reverts back [194] saying that there are many articles on this however he still fails to provide any source that specifies and backs his information. He is reported once more, [195] telling him that that is original research and that the information was not in that specific source that he provided, he revert back [196] now saying that a source should be found to disprove his added information which is absolutely ridiculous as his information in the first place was not backed up by the source. He is reverted with a final warning, [197] telling him that if he adds the unsourced information one more time then he will be reported, however that does not stop him to revert again, [198] once again repeating the ridiculous statement that a source should be provided to disprove his unsourced information while also saying that the constitution and the clause exist omitting the fact that neither were published as of now or taken effect. Thank you for your time. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:CC61:56B8:62B5:CE8E (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note - I originally reported this user here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but it was recommended I do so here instead.--2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:CC61:56B8:62B5:CE8E (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The source says nothing about same sex marriage at all. It is mostly focused on the topic of the change in the electoral system. So both of you are edit warring over nothing. I've left an edit warring warning on their talk page and you should also consider yourself warned. There is no discussion on the talk page at all about it, which should have been the first step. Blackmane (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that there was nothing about same-sex marriage in the source is the exact reason the user was reverted. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:CC61:56B8:62B5:CE8E (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring is not allowed even for a good purpose. Leave the article alone for a bit, somebody else will sort the problem out. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm basing my statement on this line from your OP, While it is true Georgia has voted for a new constitution that includes a ban on same-sex marriage, as per source. The way you had written implied that this was your stance, hence my comment. Blackmane (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Multiple problems with Steven Heine

Hi there. I am requesting assistance regarding what to do with the article Steven Heine. After noticing that the article reads like a resume, I looked into the editing history and found that the user:Xxdogenxx had added most of the content. All of that user edits over an 11 year period are confined to the article on Steven Heine. This suggests to me that someone with a close connection to the article's subject, or potentially the person himself, has been adding its content with that username. Furthermore, 100% of the citations are potentially self-published (WP:SELFPUB) because they come from the university's department website affiliated with the article's subject matter, which can be changed at will by the department and/or the article's subject. The person is a notable academic in the field of Buddhist studies, so I don't think it should be deleted, but all of the references seem problematic as do the circumstances of the article's creation, and I'm not sure how to proceed. I posted a conflict on interest warning on the user's talk page and at the top of the article, but have not yet altered any content. Thanks for you help. DJLayton4 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have removed a lot of puffery and unsourced material, but the rest of it is still sourced to primary sources. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it just. This looks like a case of vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• WP:TNT. There's something very distressing about promotionalism by a scholar of Zen. EEng 09:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess someone was messing with his Zen thing, maybe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    • One might even call it...zensationalist... I'll see myself out. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance everyone. I'm pretty sure he's not actually a practitioner of Zen, just a wannabe :-) DJLayton4 (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Foolish lock-out

Er. I seem to have locked myself out of my account. AFAICS I deleted the email linked to the account, probably due to some privacy paranoia (why on earth would I need that? Oh. To reset password). AFAIR I was frequently getting locked out of the account on different computers. Is it possible to re-enable access if I supply the email I used to use? The account has a variety of addins enabled, and edits linked to it. Sorry about this, thanks for taking the time to consider it. Jabberwoch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.176 (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

If you lost the password and don't have email enabled, there isn't really anything we can do about it. Check your browser for a stored password, I guess. If you can't find your password, create a new account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• If there's no solution, you may have to simply create a new account. Fortunately you old account only made 841 edits [199], so it's not a massive tragedy. You can link to the old account on your new userpage and explain that you lost the password. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out above, your account is not recoverable if you have completely lost your password and have absolutely no way of finding it stored somewhere and you did not add and confirm and email address with your account. You'll have to create a new one. I'm sorry to give the bad news, but looking on the bright side (as pointed out above), your account isn't excessively huge with a massive amount of edits, and you can simply redirect the user and user talk page of your old account to your new one. Just make sure to confirm an email address this time! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

There is no reason for this bot to revert all my edit. This bot is malfunctioning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantismenos (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dantismenos. Although your edits are not vandalism, you are adding massive amounts of unreferenced content, which is obviously based on personal experience. We call that original research, which violates policy. This is not acceptable in a Wikipedia biography, and raises the possibility that you are writing about yourself. These issues are not a matter for this noticeboard. If you have further questions, I recommend the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: @Davey2010: While some of the additions by User:Dantismenos were problematic – unsourced or insufficiently sourced, potential autobiographical editing, etc. – it looks like the edits were made in a good-faith effort to improve our article on Christos Dantis. Cluebot reverted Dantismenos' edits with the edit summary m (Reverting possible vandalism by Dantismenos to older version. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG. (3186616) (Bot)). Whatever Dantismenos' edits were, they certainly weren't vandalism. Dantismenos – or someone – should report the error (using the link in the edit summary), as Cluebot did indeed misclassify Dantismenos' edits as vandalism and disappear them with a minor edit.

That's not saying that Dantismenos' edits should be immediately restored, but Cluebot clearly erred in this instance. It would be wrong for us to just slap Dantismenos down without addressing Cluebot's mistake. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, please note that I began by saying that the edits were not vandalism, and directed the editor to the Teahouse for further discussion. I fail to see how that amounts to slapping the editor down. You are welcome to discuss your concerns with ClueBot's operator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades - My apologies I didn't actually look at the issue - I simply assumed Cluebot reverted the editor and that editor thought it was a false positive or was trolling (as has been done before here) and that was it, Anyway I've undone the close, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for any inconvenience caused. I am really baffled with all these since I havent posted for a long time (since 2013) and there are a lot of robots autodeleting while I still write my modifications for my favourite Greek singer. As to the photo removed Christos Dantis.jpg which I re-uploaded after it was taken down two months ago being dantis2011.jpg I have to wait 77 days on the ORTS queue to be verified yet I claim that this is my own photo which I still have the camera body and all original photos before and after the one taken. Further more as to the unsourced unreferenced text that was massive, I was invited to write even more edits by wikipedia alert messaging. All sources need time for referencing as well to append the index AFTER writing the final document. Nevertheless my first three sources are two TV interviews where Christos Dantis is saying about his years on RIA – CBS 1. Christos Dantis 1999 interview at OK with Themis Georgadas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9lEuO-SeEU1 Source of information Christos Dantis is saying about his years before RIA – CBS 2. Christos Dantis 1994 interview at Tsai me Kanellh with Liana Kanellh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WSmpEhEafw and his interview on people magazine which states about his family and early years as a child. So even now that I have provided the necessary information, and (although flattering) why am I treated like I am a relative or the singer himself since I am clearly not even living in the same area and havent seen him since that photography session? The situation seems getting worse instead of better. But nevertheless thanks for all the goodwilling humans around. More sources to be given if needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantismenos (talk • contribs) 00:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dantismenos: I see you've now reported at the Cluebot interface; I agree, this was not vandalism and as such was a false positive. However, you must put in the sources (references) at the same time as you insert the information. This is particularly important for an article on a living person; as stated in the box that appears at the top of the editing window, unsourced or poorly sourced information in an article about a living person is subject to immediate removal. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Let's cut the AI some slack, ClueBot NG has to look at a lot of factors - and one of them is user trustworthiness. If a new user crops up making large unreferenced edits, it's bound to show up as red flags in any one's mind, let alone ClueBot. But while editors can re-evaluate on a case-by-case basis, bots can't. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 19:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Eithe genoimin

User:Eithe genoimin is an WP:SPA that after failing to push POV in Pathology Partnership, POVforked it to The Pathology Partnership (I've marked for CSD A11) ([200]. Although the account has no edits after a final warning was given by User:DGG about edits in the new article (presumably undiscovered as being a fork at that time) [201], this editor is disruptive, WP:NOTHERE. Widefox; talk 11:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

As for the article, The Pathology Partnership is currently the clean version as I left it, but Pathology Partnership] has the edit history; Rathfelder has cleaned it considerably, and I am now cleaning it the rest of the way, to approximately what I had before. . I leave it to someone else to do the deletion pf The Pathology Partnership, block,and, probably,semi-protect. Thanks, Widefox, for spotting this. You are of course right I had not noticed the fork. DGG ( talk ) 12:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Always a pleasure DGG. Do we have a bot running WP:dupdet on (new) articles? Widefox; talk 12:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

CopyPatrol does plagiarism checking on new articles, it occasionally picks up splits and copy and paste moves. MER-C 12:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible LTA IP

The edits from 74.70.97.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have the whiff of LTA, but I don't know exactly who it would be. I believe I've cleaned up all of the damage, but it continued (unnoticed) after a 31 hour block. Diffs: [202] [203] [204] agtx 14:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like block evasion by 74.70.113.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I might be able to do a range block if it keeps up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Gaddafi Image Problem

The lede image of the GA-rated Muammar Gaddafi has been an issue of much contention for many years. In December 2015, an RfC on the issue of which image to use resulted in no consensus, so the established image had to stay in place ([205]). Today, User:JimmyJoe87—who has been a registered editor for three months and who focuses heavily on changing lede images at Wikipedia ([206])—has switched the image in the infobox to their preferred choice. I reverted this change, explaining that they should seek a consensus before making such a change. They have resorted to edit warring to return their favoured image ([207], [208]), a habit that they have been criticised for on their Talk Page before in recent months ([209]). I do not want to get into an edit war with JimmyJoe, but would appreciate it if an administrator could step in and revert the image to the long-established variant until such a point when a new consensus is established via the Talk Page process. Given that this appears to be a recurring problem, a warning about edit warring might also be in order. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the image for the time being. It does not take an admin to do this, and nor would it carry any special weight if an administrator did so, since one would simply be acting in his or her capacity as a normal editor in such a case. I agree that altering the image without agreement is disruptive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is this such a contentious issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Just use a picture of El Presidente and be done with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to post both pictures in the infobox. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The archived discussion about the image linked to by Midnightblueowl above explains why the issue is contentious. Discussion about which image to use should take place on the article's talk page rather than here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

SoS! User: Atsme intentionally adding false claims to article (and removing sources) , and edit warring to keep the false claims

WP:DENY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User: Atsme appears to have gone rogue. She added a false, unsourced claimthat Contempt of Court is a misdemeanor to Pardon of Joe Arpaio, even after being toldthat the source does not contain the word “misdemeanor” and after being told that Criminal Contempt is not a “misdemeanor”. She also deleted half the sources from the article despite being told not to gut the article while there is an active deletion discussion, by multiple admins and other editors. Her conduct at the talk page of Donald Trump-Russia dossier is even more disturbing, as she states her intention to add false information to the article that can be fairly described as fake news and conspiracy theories, such as that “the russians interfered in the 2016 election to favor Hillary Clinton.” Her conduct at deletion discussion at Joe Arpaio also indicates editoris here to push a political agenda and lacks basic understanding of Wiki policy. Indefinite block is in order. 2600:1017:B40A:92B3:A95E:F28C:9918:AFDC (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Same blocked sock farmer - needs to be cite banned. Obviously has access to various fake IP accounts. The Bushranger, TonyBallioni - he's baaaack!! Atsme📞📧 02:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Radiation15 and unsourced content

Radiation15 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly asked add citations to content added or changed. This doesn't seem to be taking.

• November 7: added an unsourced production company to Venom (2018 film)
• November 7: added unsourced production companies to List of Columbia Pictures films
• November 7: added original research to Peter Rabbit (film)
• November 8: added unsourced production compmanies to The Post (film)
• November 8: added an unsourced film to List of DreamWorks Pictures films
• November 8: added unsourced production companies to List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present)
• November 8: again added an unsourced film to List of DreamWorks Pictures films
• November 10: When one of the articles was finally put under full protection to force discussion, Radiation15's response was to tell me to "chill out" about requiring sources and said of the IMDb "there's your fuckin' source". The IMDb is, of course, not a reliable source.
• November 13: changed a sourced release date in The Greatest Showman
• November 13: again added unsourced production companies to Venom (2018 film)

I recommend a block for edit warring to add unsourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - I've blocked the user for 36 hours for persistently adding unreferenced content to articles. There's clearly a pattern of doing so, and talking to the user and leaving warnings have not stopped the behavior. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Seemingly "do as I wish" account

• Lucky For You (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Need Admin eyes on Lucky For You. User is not heeding warnings, uploading possible copyvio's, breaking infoboxes, forcing image sizes. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have temporarily deleted recent uploads by this user as spot check indicates they are consistently tagged with incorrect license and invalid fair use claim. Alex Shih (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is this sufficient, or does the user need at least a temporary block for not heeding warnings/policies? There is repeated precedent for giving such users an "attention-getting block" when nothing else has elicited their response or comprehension. Pinging FlightTime and Alex Shih. - Softlavender (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. The tendentious nature reminds me of Emmy Expert (rapid, minor problematic image edits while being non-communicative) from the most recent case I can remember. I'll take another look while inviting more opinions. Alex Shih (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Agree to block, seems to have increased activity yesterday. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging @Alex Shih and Softlavender:, I think the block should be applied, however you (Alex Shih) might be considered WP:INVOLVED, should an AIV report be posted referencing this thread ? - FlightTime (open channel) 15:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: I don't think this is appropriate for AIV. The problem with this user is that their edit can be argued as "good faith" and "bold", although I disagree as I have expressed earlier. Blocking now may be seem as premature, and issuing a final warning (for not participating in the AN/I discussion) may be seem as overkill in this context, so I am waiting for more input from one or more editors before implementing any action. Alex Shih (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can say that I'm not involved and I agree that a short disruption block is needed. A "nudge" or "wake-up block" has been applied and determined to be needed many times on ANI, and I think that in situations such as this, it's a logical and appropriate next step if we feel that we've exhausted our efforts to try and help, educate, and warn the user and without success or any kind of communication from the editor in concern. Given the agreement made by everyone else here, I have applied a 24 hour block to the account. I hope this will achieve the result that we're hoping to achieve. I really want to help this editor... I hope that they'll grow and become an experienced and highly respected editor, and I especially hope that this will help accomplish that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I've also added this message to the user's talk page. I.... really do hope that (s)he reaches out and that (s)he allows me (or... us) to help educate them and get them on the right path....... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

New editor clogging up the history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Despite a note or two, Clapwong keeps making a ridiculous amount of tiny little edits to accomplish little: this took them 34 edits. Their edit history is full of this--minor edits that sometimes are useful, sometimes not. I asked them repeatedly to explain their edits, but I got no more than three (3) edit summaries out of them. They are averaging 18.519 edits per page. I'm not sure what to do, but these overloaded histories are ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It could be incompetence, or it could be an editor trying to get past a threshold edit count. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• They're well past autoconfirmed, arent' they? FlightTime, what do you make of this? Drmies (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• 28 edits for some spaces. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Something like this [210] is of limited usefulness - at least very least edit summaries should be used, and maybe User:Clapwong can be asked to use the sandbox. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Notices have been placed on the user's talk page, but they appear to have gone unread (or at least unheeded). I'd recommend a short block (31 hours seems to be standard, although I've never figured out why 31 is the magic number) in order to bring their attention to the matter and prevent further cluttering of page histories. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

extended 500/30 is the obvious game.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X3 @Drmies: I think Baseball Bugs has hit the nail, but I'm learning more towards incompetence. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

They just hit 500 edits, now they just have to wait 28 more days. What a waste of time for all this hitting of the save changes button. Natureium (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I am having trouble finding anything that looks like an innocent explanation. The last twenty-one (!) edits to Konami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are

• the addition of one single character each;
• and that character is a space...
• that doesn't correct any error in spelling, grammar, or typography...
• and doesn't make any visible change in how the article appears...
• because they're all whitespace padding in the article's infobox code.

Seriously. For each entry in the infobox's parameter list, Clapwong made another edit to add an unnecessary space between the pipe and the parameter name. Twenty-one edits like this one, with the total effect of this (which doesn't change the content or rendering of the page one iota). I don't know why Clapwong is padding his edit count, but it's pretty obviously not for a useful purpose. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

45 edits to Nestle for no visible change, which was then reverted. Natureium (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go with Icewhiz's guess above; I forgot about the topics with 500/30 restrictions. Shall we wait 29 days and then block? Or just block as soon as he touches one of those articles? Or block now so we don't forget to do it later? (And notify the Checkusers....) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with 500/30. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, it's surely an attempt to game 500/30 extended confirmed. One option is to wait until the 30 days are up and see if they do any sensible editing during that time - then if not, immediately remove the EC right as it will have been improperly gained. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Is that possible? I didn't realize that EC could be manually added or removed. Learn something new every day. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

These 26 edits to the same article make me curious, although these actually make a change to the page as rendered. Natureium (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) See also User:Willschmut and his contributions leading up to 500 (and I believe that has been here to AN/I as well - though after making edits to ARBPIA) - I think there was a SPI and CU on that one too - and perhaps another user or two.Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Linking random words (again, one at a time, sometimes taking two or three consecutive edits to add or remove a pair of square brackets) is pretty transparent edit-count padding as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

There's more weirdness with that because I'm nearly certain that User:Sapphire8888 and User:Penultimate88 are the same person, and using both accounts at the same time, but for no purpose I can figure out. Natureium (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You guys think too much. Blocked indef. There is no innocent explanation, only a question of which indef-block-worthy reason is why he's doing what he's doing --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is This related? Also, FWIW I endorse Floquenbeam's block. The user has proven they intend to do nothing useful, and for that reason the account serves no purpose for Wikipedia. --Jayron32 20:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Definitely related. Would CU be useful here, as it was last time? ansh666 20:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Good block. Blatantly gaming the system is a red flag for being WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Could an edit filter be created to help detect these kinds of edits? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Doubtful. Each individual edit is not unusual, it's the volume (and intent) that's concerning. ansh666 21:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• prowiktop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is exhibiting very similar behavior. Possible sock? Furrykiller (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Good catch. Blocked. Swarm ♠ 22:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Think it's time we confirm the connections here. Home Lander (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Well, this is fun. As for the connections, let's ask Zzuuzz, and have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline. And shoot, I see now that TonyBallioni had already deleted 470 edits worth of user page, saying it was just for EC status. Other CUs involved were User:KrakatoaKatie and User:Bbb23, who I hope is still alive and well. BTW on the CU wiki there is no Wikipedia/en/ConsumersDistributingonline; perhaps there should be. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  Drmies, those 470 edits still count towards EC status.

  As for revoking EC - it's been done before (see {{ECgaming}}); I've done it a few times, and while I'd like to think that eventually they'll stay unblocked, so far they're all socks. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  Drmies, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi had db-reasoned it, and that reason got copied into the the deletion log when I switched it to U5. I'm not too familiar with the case, but I see BU Rob13 did the CU block for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: wot I do now TB? — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 09:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• And now for the big reveal: both Clapwong and prowiktop are confirmed to be User:ConsumersDistributingonline. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for following up on this. I thought something smelled funny, and I appreciate Drmies opening the thread here. 2601:188:180:11F0:F907:E55:8BEA:B132 (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

*GASP* NO! That's not possible! But that would mean that your uncle's brother's cousin is really .... YOUR EX-NEIGHBOR! Ravensfire (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by sock User:Metalkp

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What can be done about the disruptive editing by User:Metalkp which is a sockpuppet of User:Krajoyn? Keiiri (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite block is the solution, because account is being used only for reverting your edits. Capitals00 (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sock or not, this is clear harassment/HOUNDING. Block warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• I’ve no idea if this is a sockpuppet or not but I’ve blocked to stop the disruption. Perhaps someone could add User:Metalkp to the SPI page? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Already listed at SPI. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks from User:RexxS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the page Talk:Posttraumatic_stress_disorder, User:RexxS is engaging in needless personal attacks and violating WP:NPA.

Thanks for your help, PolarYukon (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @PolarYukon: I'm afraid that the only help you are likely to receive here will be to tell you a) exactly what a personal attack per WP:NPA actually is, and b) how RexxS has not fallen foul of it. He merely, with occasional robustness, informs you that you cannot defend the indefensible and points out that if that is your fault for believing that you can, then you should re-read WP:RS, or, if it is someone else's fault, that you should tell them so. Good advice all, and sturdily recommended that it be taken on board. Now, on a lighter note, since this is clearly a content dispute (between you and multiple editors, I note), and will be closed imminently on those grounds, would you care to withdraw this- if I may suggest, mildly poorly grounded- report? Many thanks! — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 19:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You want to supply diffs for that? RexxS has only ever made two edits there, only one of which is in the past year and that diff doesn't have anything remotely qualifying as a personal attack; I see multiple people making a lengthy effort to explain the concept of "reliable sourcing" to you, and you replying with assorted variants of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any personal attacks there. I see a routine content dispute, and I see RexxS criticizing the sources you brought forth and forcefully defending the importance of using sources that comply with WP:MEDRS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

All I see is PolarYukon edit warring, 3RR violation and a possible incoming southern hemisphere hunting weapon. Canterbury Tail talk 19:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

If you think running to ANI with a hilariously pathetic attempt at tattling is going to cause people not to pay attention to your own behavior, you are unbearably naive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:PolarYukon_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29 Good luck with that. --Tarage (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

How else would you prefer to be told that your sources are inadequate without hurting your feelings? I think Rexx did a pretty good job of explaining it all to you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP range unusual activity

User talk:2601:89:4300:79F2:71DB:B8FD:57E0:375C contains someone's address and contact information, and it was created by another IP - 2601:205:4002:73B0:CC30:8A22:5E2:A07 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP and one other appear to have added very unusual content to User talk:2601:205:4001:331B:89D5:6D54:1BDA:1378 and possibly other pages. I'm trying to find all of them, but something is definitely going on here. Not sending notifications as it's hard to tell which IP is currently active. Home Lander (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:75.6.173.172 has similar content. Home Lander (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I cleaned it all up. @Home Lander: in the future, please don't report outing or personally identifiable information here. Report it directly to WP:Oversight. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks NinjaRobotPirate, will do. I'm a little concerned about the links visible in the history at this page, the writing on the page appears perverted so I'm worried might be behind them. Home Lander (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, revdeleted that, too. Also, for the record, I range blocked 2601:205:4002:73B0:0:0:0:0/64 without talk page access for posting this disruption. It looks like this has been going on for years across a few different IP ranges. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Yeah, most of the dates I'm seeing are from 2015. It appears they crossed into the mainspace at Ponytail [211] but otherwise appeared to stay on the user talk pages. Quite odd. Home Lander (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Appears this range [212] (holy crap, did I actually get the range right?) has the mainspace edits, and more of the weird dinosaur stuff with more links. See [213], which should probably be rev-deleted as well. Home Lander (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

SPA Youngman24

Can someone please end the career of SPA Youngman24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? The only thing this account has ever done is add his naked picture on Wikipedia and will not take no, from multiple users, for an answer. A short block did not have any effect; he started spamming that picture again. Dr. K. 03:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. And someone might want to go over to Commons and zap the picture too; while not a perfect fit for this scenario, {{nopenis}} exists for a reason. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I'm betting this was probably the case here too. Home Lander (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Added to the bad image list for good measure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you @The Blade of the Northern Lights and Malcolmxl5: I also didn't know about the template. What can I say? Dr. K. 04:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: In light of this longterm spamming, this is, unfortunately, too much information. Dr. K. 04:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL @Dr.K.. @The Blade of the Northern Lights: I tagged the commons file for deletion. Home Lander (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly sure how I came across the template, for the record, but it is strangely amusing. Evidence of some misspent college years that I'd know of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL. Well, not so misspent since it proved useful in this case. :) Dr. K. 05:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this editor is also User:172.97.55.197. DMacks (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Blade blocked him with autoblock enabled (it says "account creation disabled" so I think that's what it means), so the IP should be unable to edit for now. Home Lander (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Autoblock is enabled (as well as account creation being disabled, a separate thing). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User repeatedly deleting more historical information to further their personal claims

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Offending User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.166.166.59

Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mimosa_(cocktail)&diff=810207235&oldid=807428468

User coming from 67.166.166.59 has repeatedly edited the page related to Mimosas, deleting historical references and links which pre-date their claim/opinion on the proper naming of the grapefruit+champagne combination variant, despite more widespread and older links which give an alternative history/naming they apparently disagree with. Unclear whether they have a commercial interest in the matter, but the repeated deleting of more historical links/claims shows clear bias against fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.65.43 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yukterez discussion page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following problem I posted on the vandalism report page (the answer was to post it here):

Yukterez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After he got blocked indefinite in the German Wikipedia, he copied the whole user discussion in his English profile without permission of anyone (especially me): User_talk:Yukterez/deutsch. This is a violation of the personal rights of the German users, as he's not allowed to use our German discussion to make the impression, we would have been discussing here. Also the site is not declared as a copy. While the site has been deleted in the German Wikipedia (especially a post, "I would be a ridiculous person"), he's going on with the same discussion here. The discussion is over! Seems so, he's requesting for a global ban... -- Uwe Martens (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• This does not seem to be an en.wiki issue, and just as de.wiki would not be happy if we brought our drama to your pages, I'm not particularly happy seeing it here. I declined the report at AIV, and I'm going to speak out in general against action here unless archiving would violate the polemic policy. We give a lot of leeway on en.wiki as to what users can keep in their user subpages, and I'd extend that to talk archives. For what it is worth, de.wiki has not deleted it, they have blanked the page. The history still exists, and I have made edit summary attribution on the en.wiki archive for copyright purposes.
  That being said, if there is content that would be in violation of en.wiki policies it can be deleted. @SoWhy and Sandstein: would either of you mind looking at User_talk:Yukterez/deutsch and telling us your thoughts on that page. From Google translate, all I see is bickering that isn't any worse from what we have on user talk pages here, but getting native speakers to review it might be worthwhile. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• At a glance, a lot of bickering and personal attacks, about what you‘d expext to see on the talk page of a user involved in blocks, checkusers, arbitration cases, etc.  Sandstein  06:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

First, this was not a block but a ban (for exchanging some compliments with an old foe via IP, so no sockpuppets were involved. Also, this little skirmish is not part of the archived talk). Second, if it helps I can link to the original archive instead of pasting the whole conversation, like this: Update. --Yukterez (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(pinged) Sandstein's assessment is correct. I disagree with Tony's conclusion though. We do give users some leeway on what they can have on their userpages and in their userspace but still it should be at least be in some way pertinent to editing this project (cf. WP:UP#NOT). I fail to see how keeping a copy of a German talk page here is in any way relevant or serves any purpose other than to try to continue the dispute from de-wiki here. As pointed out, the original page has not been deleted on de-wiki, so what exactly is the point of this "archive"? @Yukterez: If you wish to edit here, feel free. But unless you can give us a good reason why we keeping a copy of a page that still exists on de-wiki is in any way pertinent for editing en-wiki, you should defuse the situation and just agree to have this page deleted. Regards SoWhy 07:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I already deleted the text and linked to the archive instead, see this Difflink. But as you can see here, there were also plenty of open discussions regarding articles in both languages which had nothing to do with the conflict. --Yukterez (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yukterez: The last discussion has been copied as well and thus should be blanked as well. Would you agree to me deleting the page completely? You can then recreate it with just the link to the old page at de-wiki, thus avoiding any of the drama swapping over to this project. I think that would be the best solution. Regards SoWhy 08:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Ok, that you can do. --Yukterez (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Just for the records and to illuminate Yukterez's character: He has got several escalating temporary blocks for provocations and personal attacks, beginning with one for a "funny" play with the words "Ofen" and "Auschwitz" [214]. To log out for personal attacks to avoid further damage for the block log is socket play just without puppet. And even now he continues and forges signatures [215]. --Feliks (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That was not a "funny wordplay" but a well referenced quote. In de-Wiki even an original quote from a holocaust survivor was mistaken for a "funny wordplay" although it was referenced. Unortunately, everybody who takes a stance against calling the german AfD (the Trump equivalent in Germany) Nazis is regarded as a Nazi himself by the Antifa, which is very strong on de-Wiki. My old foes from de-Wiki are just trying to import their crusade into en-Wiki by warming up old stories, and because they don't have any Difflinks from en-Wiki they just try to follow me around and comment everytzhing I do until I lose my temper, just like they did on de-Wiki. --Yukterez (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thucydides411

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is about Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

He keeps on reinserting this comment [216]

As well as throwing about accusations of bias and censorship. [217] [218] [219] [220] and other PA's [221]

All in less then 24 hours (there is more, but I got bored at this point).

I asked him to stop

[222]

His response was

[223]

I even asked on the articles talk page for everyone to stop

[224]

This is now turning into an edit war over the offending comments.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

What I object to is the constant removal of my comment on the talk page, but the preservation of the personal attack directly above it. If you want to remove personal attacks, remove all of them, rather than keeping the personal attacks made in one direction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not removed any personal attacks, just asked users to stop posting them, you choose to re-insert a (twice) PA. PA's are never allowed even in retaliation for others.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I've now removed all the personal commentary there ([225]), including the personal attack against Marteau and the one directed against me. Those were directly above the comment of mine that was removed. You can't remove one comment in the name of civility, while preserving personal attacks directly above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but n o you have not, just your interaction with Volunteer Marek.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've been reverted and it's all back in again: [226]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thuc, you've been warned on numerous previous occassions not to refactor other users' talk page comments. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, what happened here is that my comment was removed in the name of civility (not that I refactored other people's comments), while the personal attacks directly above were not removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, thank you for volunteering the time and effort to make this report. I wonder whether it belongs here or better at AE, in light of the two prior Arbcom Enforcement sanctions against Thucydides411's and now this escalation of disruption at American Politics articles under DS? SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to correct the record: I received exactly one sanction (not two, as you claim). That sanction was under the "reinserted material challenged by reversion" clause which has caused so much trouble and confusion, and which was subsequently removed from the page. I appealed that sanction at the time, and the majority view of the admins commenting on the appeal was that the sanction was unwarranted. However, the sanction ran out before the appeal came to a conclusion, so the appeal was considered moot. One admin commenting on that case called the sanction a miscarriage of justice. I asked for a decision precisely because I expected that in such a contentious topic as AP2, editors would try to leverage that sanction into future sanctions, as is happening now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement sanctions I regret seeing you misrepresent so easily verified a fact: first sanction and then the second sanction.

I haven't misrepresented anything, and you should strike that falsehood. As you can see, the second sanction was struck. And you're very familiar with the first sanction, and the fact that on appeal, it was viewed as unjust and incorrect by most admins who commented. You've been hounding me for over a year now, as a look through my talk page history will show, so you're very familiar with all this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, here is my appeal of the first (and only) sanction: [227]. It was closed on procedural grounds, because the block had expired. MelanieN said about that sanction, "I am distressed that no-one has done anything about what seems to me to be an obvious miscarriage of justice here." NeilN said about the sanction, "Appeals are supposed to review the decision. I believe based on the evidence presented, the decision was in error." NeilN also said, "It's not really fair to Thucydides411 to have this appeal rendered moot simply because the block expired." -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your convoluted solipsistic denial of your AE blocks is old news by now. No need to repeat. I hope you don't bother to attempt to explain away your other sanction. Tha Admin's notice speaks for itself. Your aspersions against me without diffs are themselves basis for a block or ban. And if you try to cherrypick a few diffs, just remember that others can easily look up the context and see through any spinmeistering you might decide to attempt. And really, ANI is not smart place to try that sort of thing. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thucydides is at 4RR on the article talk page. The article is under 1RR DS per ARBAP2. [228] [229] [230] [231]. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You've told me (directly above) that it's important not to refactor other users' comments. I was restoring my own comment to the talk page. I objected to removal of my comment on grounds of civility, while personal attacks against me, directly above my comment, were preserved. In any case, I removed my comment, along with the other personal attacks, but have now been reverted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411 has a valid point, he only reinserted it 3 times.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember what policy this is in but I'm pretty sure restoring comments isn't a 3RR exception. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically, the talk page is not under 1RR, just the regular 3RR. Which he also broke. Note also that Thucydides411 was topic banned from this very article (it's pretty much the only article he edits, he's an WP:SPA) by User:Lord Roem for exactly this kind of behavior [232]. The topic ban was for BOTH trying to edit war non-consensus text into the article (which he has now resumed - it still has no consensus - and which is what prompted this renewed exchange on talk) AND for misbehavior on the talk page (in that case it was restoring disruptive comments by an IP).

There's also a more serious matter here. Thucidydes411's comments directed at me have nothing to do with the article itself, but they bring up (in a dishonest way) an ArbCom case I was involved in ... EIGHT years ago. Back then I was naive enough to edit under my real first name. The linking by Thucidydes to that case is then not intended to bring up anything specific but to just intimidate and WP:HARASS. This is particularly true in light of the recent ongoing vandalism and harassment on my own talk page by throw away accounts. These accounts are making "we know who you are" kind of edits and Thucydides, observes my talk page, and is surely aware of that vandalism. He's playing up to them (I'm assuming it's not actually him) by posting the link to the eight year old arbcom case and because he knows that bringing it up will irritate me in the same way that the vandalism is meant to irritate. He's basically trying to pile on.

The Russian interference article is more or less the only thing Thucydides411 edits on Wikipedia. He's a single purpose account. And he has a long history of disruption on that article (though because he gets reverted by others, mostly the disruption involves unproductive edit warring and posting rants and accusations on the talk page). It's way way way way past time he was banned from this talk page. That part is pretty much a given. The fact that he's now decided to use the talk page to engage in harassment and attacks - and since this is all he does on Wikipedia - clearly establishes that he's WP:NOTHERE and really - not gonna mince words here - should be told to leave the project (until he can figure out how to be a constructive editor). He's contributed almost nothing and has just caused constant headache and strife. And that's putting it nicely. Volunteer Marek  19:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

In response to my comments on the talk page, you brought up my old sanction - and then accuse me of harassment when I raise your related sanction as well. What was the purpose of your raising my sanction, if not to intimidate and harass me?

You can look through my edit history and see that I'm not a single-purpose account. That line of attack falls apart pretty quickly when you look at the article's I've written and improved, having nothing to do with American politics (e.g., Felix Bloch just yesterday).

The lack of self-awareness above is astounding. I don't think I really have to go into specifics. Everyone who frequents this page knows what I'm talking about. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"you brought up my old sanction " - yes, the sanction for that very article and for that exact behavior. You brought up random shit from eight years ago that had nothing to do with anything, except possibly the throw away account harassment on my talk page. And people can look at your edit history and see for themselves how much time you've devoted to this article compared to others. Volunteer Marek  20:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thucydides411 would be well-advised to note the first law of holes and voluntarily step away from the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article and talk page for at least 48 hours. They should probably step away from this ANI thread as well; I oppose any other sanctions if Thucydides411 does something along those lines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Shall we take the above as a no then?Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It's sort of unreasonable to ask someone to not respond to attacks made against them. Saying one will only oppose a block if the defendant doesn't defend themselves just puts the defendant in a Catch-22. In any case, as I've said, I don't have time for this nonsense. You guys can proceed as you wish. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason that I suggested you avoid ANI is that your responses haven't helped you at all. Everyone on this board can look at the diffs and editor histories for themselves. My offer technically still stands (if you have questions, comment on my talk page and not here). Separately, I think this thred should be closed in favor of the WP:A/R/E discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I have been following that talk page for some time and I am struggling to recall a single PA initiated by Thucydides. His uncivil comments are always or if not, in almost every case, in response to uncivil comments. The problem of uncivil comments is solved by preventing them not ignoring them. It is unfortunate so many editors chose to apply a double-standard removing only his comments, which may be evidence of another fundamental problem. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid it as much as possible. The Marek/EEML stuff clearly doesn't belong (and edit-warring is always unacceptable, especially on talk pages); I have no strong opinion yet on anything else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a reasonable decision. My understanding of WP:NPA and WP:TALKNO is that no personal attacks belong. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

My reason for this was the reinsertion of blatant PA's, it does not matter if others were made, they were hated. It was the attitude of "but my PA's must remain to balance the other PA's" I found problematic. MArak at least has the savvy to not remove off topic material form a hat.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think Thucydides411's actions are appropriate here, but I will agree with the statement that differential treatment of multiple PAs from different editors is not helpful. Either they all should have been hatted or all should have been removed. I do think Thucydides411 has a point their comment (a clear PA) is being treated differently than the comment it is in response to (VM's, also a PA by the same measure of discussing the contributor, not the content). However, that gives no reason to edit war on re-inclusion or to remove all others, particularly when they are involved. This is probably a case due to the DSes where admins watching that page should be doing a better job to stall any descent towards PAs ASAP by hatting threads going that direction, rather than let it get towards the point where PAs happen and then we get situations like this. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The Mad Hater -EEng

I may have missed something, whose PA was not hated?Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Haters gotta hate. EEng 21:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As the person who did the hatting: my intent with these edits [233][234] was definitely to hat all of the PA's and keep the rfcs from going off the rails. If I missed any it was purely accidental. Unfortunately that prompted some extensive monkeying with the hatted thread, as people on both sides of the debate (if we can call it that) tried to remove stuff that was directed at them and/or restore stuff they'd directed at other people. [235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242]. That's what this last edit of mine was about - I was just trying to restore that thread to the state it was in when it was hatted. The other one was removed wholesale by VM, which I have no problem with - but selectively removing or un-hatting parts of a hatted thread after the fact is not appropriate imo. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban

Given the attitude shown above to a very lenient offer I think it is clear this will just continue, even after a wikibreak (enforced or otherwise).Slatersteven (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any action - there's nothing actionable here, despite what the usual AP2 suspects have to say. Cjhard (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This isn't helping. GoldenRing (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You seem to share Thuc's suspicion of the majority of your fellow editors here. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Not the majority, SPECIFICO. Cjhard (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I don't know if this is the right place or WP:AE, but a topic ban on this article is long over due. Thucydides411 impact on the actual article content has been minimal - precisely because consensus is consistently against him. Yet he's managed to waste a tremendous amount of editor time with his obstinacy, talk page disruption, derailing threads, dragging down the level of discussion with rants and accusations etc. But like I said, given that now he's making comments solely with the intent of provoking and irritating people, an indef block wouldn't be inappropriate either. Volunteer Marek  08:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Opppose Not really, none of the diffs above really struck me as personal attacks. I see the word "you" being used which is fine in a discussion. More importantly I don't see any actual incivility, but comments that are about article content and the position of editors, not ad hominem - and these sorts of comments I would say are not sanctionable. I see two comments that might be over the line, and others that are just padding the complaint. A warning would be fine for those. I would say considerably more is required for a topic ban then the diffs presented in this report. I've seen worse.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This is an WP:SPA who creates disruption in the narrowly defined area of their interest. Their recent comments on the article talk page are very clearly a disruption aimed at another contributor, nothing else. Article talk pages exist only for debating improvement of content. The user was previously sanctioned twice in relation to WP:AE. Therefore, I think this needs to be decided on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This can be a very tough topic to edit, and I don't think singling out action against one user would be a good solution. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not really that hard to edit in this topic space as most of us manage to do. Some editors single themselves out with conduct that others find disruptive and tendentious.- MrX 20:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing talk page disruption outside of the hostile behavior by many editors there that Thucydides411 is only a part of the problem. Yes, Thucydides411 is approaching WP:TE, and as I learned at GamerGate, that's when one should back off and maybe take a wikibreak, but being active on talk pages to discuss how to present content in an encyclopedic fashion is exactly what talk pages are for. As long as they are not disrupting the main article(s), there's no reason to block here. I will though offer that Thucydides411 should voluntarily step back for a week or so. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think that removing clearly inappropriate comments from article talk pages is OK. However, repeatedly restoring clearly inappropriate comments on article talk pages is not. That is what he did. If anyone else did the same, they must at least be warned. However, this contributor was already sanctioned twice. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically only once: the one in Feb 2017 for edit warring on the mainspace page. The second "sanction" was reduced to a warning on review. Here we are talking about the talk page (which is not under the same restrictions within the AP DS, though is under the same DS overall), and a frustration of seeing very selective enforcement of NPA. This is a trouting situation, but one that all editors should be aware that will not be tolerated in the future. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It was reduced to warning only because he promised not to do exactly what he's doing (again) now. At this point a sanction would be preventative, not punitive, since there's no indication he intends to change his behavior. Volunteer Marek  16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Masem, I don't know how familiar you are with the Amercian Politics articles, but if you look over the talk pages where Thuc is active, you'll see that nearly every thread comes down to his personal disparagement of other editors, claims that their editing is motivated by personal POV, ridiculing WP policy as a bunch of meaningless acronyms, and so forth. His harrassment of Marek is not the only problem. I hope you have time to look at a few links I have posted below. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from American Politics and
• Support Site Ban. Thuc has been sanctioned twice in this topic already. He routinely mischaracterizes content disagreements by editors trying to reflect mainstream sources as POV-pushing. He accuses editors of following their personal opinions and engages with disparagement and denigration rather than discussion of content, sources, and policy. This behavior is not only at the Russian Interference article; it's on other related articles as well. For those who are not familiar with his conduct, here are some threads that demonstrate his personalized battleground style:

[243]

ANI

[244]

And meanwhile he’s been going after Marek on a long list of pages for a long time and has been politely asked over and over to stop.:[245]

What's particularly weird, to me, is why Thuc would think that these years-old irrelevant ad hominems against Marek would hold any sway over current editors Thuc is presumably trying to win to his POV? It seems to me he is so invested in personalizing routine editing communications that he doesn't even realize that the overwhelming majority of editors thinks these ad hominems are useless and beyond the pale. The AE thread concerning Thucydides411 should also go forward. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support I seem to recall multiple prior sanctions in this area (including previous topic bans), and at least two failed instances of someone admin shopping to try to get me sanctioned over some of the most laughable complaints in this subject area. This is an editor that has no business in politics, because the systemic problem this editor is "only" a part of is, in large part caused by this editor. Even if that weren't true, surely removing part of a problem is better than ignoring the problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because the matter is being addressed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thucydides411. Putting aside double jeopardy, it seems awfully inefficient and time-consuming to go through the same exact debate at two different drama boards. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Oppose because all editors should be instructed that comments about user conduct do not belong at article talk pages. More than this editor have been spouting off at the article talk page, regarding user conduct issues. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and related articles, primarily per Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes who summarize the tendentious conduct quite well. Of course this is an exercise in futility because the usual wikilawyers and drive-by commenters have shown up to excuse this behavior. This is why I raised this issue at AE before I realized that the issue was opened here.

Thucydides411 has persistently engaged in assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, edit warring, refusal to abide by consensus and general tendentious editing at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections for nearly a year as part of his campaign to inject his fringe POV[246], that election interference by Russia didn't happen, into the article. He has been warned several times at several venues to stop but he continues to exhibit a pattern of behavior that is disruptive and a drain on everyone's patience. These last personal attacks on Volunteer Marek are way over the line.

Recent evidence

November 12, 2017 Restoring blatant personal attack after it was removed by another editor. (Edit warring) November 12, 2017 Restoring blatant personal attack after it was removed by another editor. (Edit warring) November 12, 2017 Restoring blatant personal attack after it was removed by another editor. (Edit warring) November 12, 2017 Blatant personal attack and personalizing disputes. November 12, 2017 Assumption of bad faith: "This just looks like an attempt to hide the mainstream view of the JAR from readers. Given the discussion above about "purging" the article, the intent of this RfC is quite clear." November 12, 2017 Assumption of bad faith November 12, 2017 Assumption of bad faith October 11, 2017 Personalizing content disputes July 4, 2017 Refusal to accept consensus

Setting aside the assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks, and documented history of previous sanctions under WP:ARBAPDS, the more insidious issue is Thucydides411's polite but persistent horse beating in a transparent effort to discredit, disparage, undermine, and deny the well-established fact that Russia interfered with U.S. elections on many fronts. He has wasted far too much editors' time pushing a fringe point of view. It is nearly impossible to show this through diffs, so I refer you to his 48 comments here: Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive_12 as representative of these less obvious problems.- MrX 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Much of your comment describes a content dispute in which Thucydides argues to include the most commonly-held evaluation of the December 2016 intelligence report (JAR), that it was lacking in evidence. This is not a FRINGE position:

''But security experts say that the document provides little in the way of forensic "proof" to confirm the government's attribution" - The Hill

"The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." - Ars Technica

"The evidence presented was light on details" - Washington Post

"But the evidence in a report, in which the administration referred to the Russian cyberactivity as Grizzly Steppe, fell short of anything that would directly tie senior officers of the G.R.U. or the F.S.B., the other intelligence service, to a plan to influence the election." - NY Times

"Such was the case last week when the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI released a technical exposé of Russia’s hacking that industry experts are slamming as worse than useless" - The Daily Beast

Thucydides has not suggested adding this criticism (some of which was stable content removed out-of-process) unduly or to any section outside the one specifically dealing with the report. If there is bias it is in the push to obscure this majority opinion. Currently the article attributes all criticism to "persons" (not security professionals or experts) quoted in Süddeutsche Zeitung, a publication most english-speaking readers would be unfamiliar with, and multiple editors have argued against expanding or incorporating further criticism. I asked on the talk page for expert evaluations which dissent from the majority criticism. None were provided. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that has nothing to do with the conduct issues I've outlined. It is currently under discussion in two RfC's, which notably are trending toward not including this material. The personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are documented above. The insistence by Thucydides411's that we call the Russian Interference alleged is indeed part of the pattern of POV pushing that I and others have pointed out. - MrX 20:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This personal comment was in response to a personal comment on a talk page that has been awash in personal comments. What would be productive (as Masem suggests) is strict enforcement of NPA with a warning for first time offenses and escalating blocks for subsequent offenses. Given the relatively few regular participants in this article (and topic more broadly) enforcement would be trivial relative to the multitude of ANI and AE complaints. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - no action should be taken. There was no disruption by the accused. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• As I recently mentioned to you on an article talk page, when you so frequently make such outlandish statements in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, one strains to take any of your comments seriously.- MrX 20:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Russian interference in U.S. elections. The most recent incident wouldn’t be such a big deal if it didn’t follow eleven months of casting aspersions on those he is unable to convince and restarting the exact same settled debates over and over and over. A huge time-drain. No opinion on whether the ban should be broadened beyond this one article. O3000 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we agree on a timeline?

1. 8 November 2017 - SPECIFICO removed content critical of the JAR report which had been present in the article since July [247] (Various editors then removed and restored it, leaving it removed)
2. 9 November 2017 - Geogene removed further (stable) criticism of the JAR report (Various editors then removed and restored it, leaving it removed)
3. 10 November 2017 - Geogene removed further (stable) criticism of the JAR report (Various editors then removed and restored it, leaving it removed)
4. 10 November 2017 - I added content critical of the JAR report (which was reverted)
5. 12 November 2017 - Thucydides restored the previously removed material (which was reverted)

If there are errors in that timeline you may edit my comment to correct them. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I am talking about eleven months of disruptive editing. Not five days in November. O3000 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, per my comments below. -Darouet (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

On closing this in favour of AE action

Originally a response to the !vote of Anythingyouwant above. GoldenRing (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually the matter is not being address the, it was raised there but pretty much is not being dealt with for the reasons you state.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the AE case is open, hasn’t been postponed, and no admin has pointed to this ANI thread that you started, or suggested that this ANI proceeding come first. You say at AE “We should close this (or that) and only have one running”. It is entirely within your power to close this ANI complaint, but you have not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No, because I am not sure which is more appropriate for this discussion. But I am not sure it is serious enough to warrant an AE as I am not sure he has been previously alerted to the fact they are under discretionary sanctions. If I am wrong and he has been warned then maybe AE is a better venue, has he? You will note I have not commented on the AE, as I do not fell at this time it is valid, but as I said please point out of I am incorrect.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You said at AE that “We should close this (or that) and only have one running” but you decline to do so. You started this complaint, and User:MrX started the complaint at AE. Please close this thread, and if the AE case is closed then this one can always be re-started. It is too confusing right now to have simultaneous proceedings. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me for laboring a point, but why should this be closed? Also if an ANI was closed I was not aware it could be re-opened, thus double jeopardy comes into play. This has had input, the AE has not (and was only launched after this had been going for some time). So (again) I ask, has correct procedure been followed to launch the AE?Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I find he has been informed about discretionary sanctions (but there may be an error in that he was informed, not that he informed anyone), so am requesting that this is close doe to the AE being open. But only to keep this in one place.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The person who opened this thread has requested that it be closed. I second thatcrequest. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note this is a request for a procedural close only, not a withdraw of the complaint on the grounds I was wrong. It is solely based on the belief that there was forum shopping going on here, and that we should only have one complaint open, not that Thucydides411 has decided to mend their way, and will no longer be disruptive (I believe they will be).Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me add I am disturbed that an involved edd choose to close this. I have no issue with an involved edd closing it, but not someone who basically told me to ask for a close.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You can close it yourself. When an OP says a matter is resolved, anyone can obey the OP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It was not (and has not been) resolved, just moved to another forum.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is resolved for now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So far there is no any sign that any uninvolved admin on WP:AE will address the request (it may be completely ignored and archived - there were such cases). Therefore, closing this discussion here is premature. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So editors now have to give their viewpoints in two separate forums on the exact same matter, or else risk that the matter will be decided without their participation? That makes no sense, User:My very best wishes. I have never heard of a complaint being reopened against the wishes of the OP. This is becoming a circus, unfortunately. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is something to be resolved by uninvolved admins, rather than by contributors involved in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No it has not been resolved, and if you are using my request for a close to claim that then I have no choice but to withdraw the request on the grounds it has not yet been revolved, and the question of his actions remains open.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A request for a close means the matter is resolved for now, and will be addressed somewhere else before it is addressed here. That doesn’t seem complicated to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You guys just need some patience. Wait for a couple of days, and this question will be resolved by others, one way or another. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes, I have not edited the article in question since October 1, and I really have no idea what the dispute is about. If I want to analyze the dispute and give my opinion, where would you suggest that I or other editors dive in, here or AE? Or do you recommend that uninvolved editors just stay away from the matter and let it be decided by the involved editors? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that the discussion has progressed somewhat here and nothing has really happened at AE, I would suggest continuing here. Any admin who acted at AE in the face of a discussion here would be fairly open to accusations of acting against consensus; although admins are allowed to act unilaterally on AE complaints, if they decide differently than a consensus here then the chances of the action being overturned are fairly high. GoldenRing (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This was in essence my original point in rejecting the request to close this. I withdraw the request to close as are at least doing something here (unlike at AE, which seems dead).Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the complaint at AE as on hold in favour of the discussion here. I imagine this will be resolved one way or another here, but didn't want the complaint to get lost there just in case. I think I've managed to prevent it from being archived, but if someone with more familiarity with the workings of sigmabot could check for me, I'd be grateful. GoldenRing (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A temporary ban

As the Topic ban does not have clear consensus how about we go with an enforced version of an request made to Thucydides411 above and go for a 48 hour topic ban. I think a message does need to be sent that his actions are not acceptable (unless anyone here thinks they are?).Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• No one who makes edit summaries like this one when their only "evidence" of political editing (a blatant violation of AGF, of course) is throwing around EEML-related accusations should be editing a politically charged topic. For crying out loud, that was almost a decade ago, and Marek's offense was mild enough for his editing restriction to be rescinded within half a year. Now, in the mire of this thread, I don't know where to place this, but I support a topic ban--a broad one. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit summary restored text removed by SPECIFICO who has no connection to EEML, so I don't see the connection between the removal and the comment. It is also incorrect to say this decade-old case is the extent of evidence.

When a discussion like this is forced (introducing ever-higher burdens for inclusion, first that a source isn't reliable than when that's demonstrated, that its author isn't an expert, then when that's demonstrated, that it's still undue, etc.) for every bit of criticism month after month, that is arguable evidence.

The crux of the current removal is that an 11-month-old review of an 11-month-old paper is out-of-date [1][2] which is specious as the content of the report has not changed, no more recent, thorough reviews exist (if so they should have been substituted) and the article includes multiple uncontested "11 month old" sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• It needs to be perfectly clear that any more aspersions by Thucydides411 towards Volunteer Marek will result in a full site ban, and a long one. It may be necessary to ban Thucydides411 from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to prevent that from happening. Other than that, I can't support any other actions here (as per my previous comment). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

commentThis user has already had two Arbcom Enforcement sanctions against him and his behavior has continued to go downhill, capped by the total meltdown that prompted this ANI. He's still denying his misdeeds above, trying to explain away his two DS enforcement actions. This is a WP:NOTHERE editor and I think there's plenty of evidence on this thread that he lacks the personal maturity to engage in collaborative work here. It's not just Marek he's abused. He's gone after MPants, @Geogene:, one or two Admins, me, and I forget who else recently. This is a huge drain on editor time and attention. He's been warned over and over (and over) and we need to cut our losses and ban him. He can apply to return some day in the future. A short wake-up ban is meaningless when he's not responding to such warnings. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - the discussion here should be enough to make the editor aware there's a potential problem. Rope. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. This huge ANI thread started with this: “He keeps on reinserting this comment [248]”. I recommend that everyone take a good hard look at that comment, and the one immediately preceding above it. They were both inappropriate comments about user conduct at an article talk page, and penalizing only one of them would be rewarding the other editor. Warn them all and drop the stick. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban - per Anythingyouwant and Atsme. I can't see the utility of a 48 hour topic ban that wouldn't be served by a clear warning not to engage in conversations about editors' biases on article talk pages. Cjhard (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Indeff. The user repeatedly restores his clearly inappropriate and unjustified comments on article talk page to attack other contributors [249]. Still, he claims to be a victim himself and refuses to discuss [250]. Their overall contributions to the project [251] look like "net negative" including the discussion above, a couple of sanctions and previous ANI engagements [252]. I would say, just block the account indefinitely and forget about it. Save some time.My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Discussion on that page has been heated since it was created almost a year ago, and the conduct that's obtained there has been unprecedented in my experience. For that reason I (essentially) no longer edit the article, and I suspect many others feel the same way. In this particular case, I think that these two edits by Volunteer Marek [253],[254], e.g.

"Thucydided, you might really consider NOT edit warring over this material seeing as how this is *precisely* what you got topic-banned for from this article for, although it was later reduced to a warning by User:Lord Roem. And when I say "precisely", I mean, precisely.Volunteer Marek 00:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)"

were certainly an escalation (not sanctionable, just typical for the page) because they contained an implicit threat. In that context, Thucydides' response was exactly in kind [255]:

"People living in Eastern European Mailing List houses shouldn't throw stones. Marek, how many Russia-related articles have you edit warred on in your 10+ years here? -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)"

VM defends their comments as being appropriate because they are describing Thucydides' drama at the page in question. But VM says Thucydides' comment is inappropriate because it refers to VM's past EEML drama, to VM's continued Russia-related editing generally, and is in VM's words [256] "an obvious attempt by Thucydides to intimidate."

It's simply implausible to maintain, on an acrimonious page, that you can threaten someone by bringing up past enforcement/near-enforcement [257][258] to shut them up, and not expect an equivalent response [259]. All of the subsequent efforts to remove Thucydides' response, but not VM's, just come across as disingenuous, whatever their intentions. It also looks like WP:GOADing, as JJLambden mentioned.

And speaking of WP:GOADing, SPECIFICO's particular obsession with Thucydides (in the last 6 months, half of the "new sections" on Thucydides' talk page are threats of enforcement from SPECIFICO) deserves some investigation. SPECIFICO insists on frequently threatening administrative action on user talk pages when any one of a set of editors who edits or comments on this or related articles (myself [260], Thucydides411 [261][262][263][264][265][266][267][268][269][270][271][272], JFG [273], Bob K31416 [274], TheTimesAreAChanging [275], James J. Lambden [276]).

This looks like the definition of WP:BATTLEGROUND. And I'm honestly curious what percentage of SPECIFICO's edits are enforcement threats on the talk pages of long-established editors, usually referencing the kind of incivility or edit warring SPECIFICO is simultaneously engaged in. The whole environment on the page would be a lot friendlier if their egregious conduct was not being condoned. -Darouet (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, aspersions are not permitted here. Please present your diffs of me edit-warring? You won't find any. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, a reference to a recent topic ban is not exactly the same as a reference to a topic ban (lifted by ArbCom after a few months) from the last decade. What is it that you and your friends want? Improving the encyclopedia is not it, I know that. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies:, if VM brings up enforcement drama to "intimidate," his own drama is also on the table, and ten years of still-ongoing edit warring over Russia topics after EEML is as pertinent as any other behavior. Again, it's not reasonable (actually, it is disruptive) to demand that VM can launch this kind of enforcement threat / ad hominem, but that a reply in kind is sanctionable. Which is what you're arguing.

As for my own concerns about the article, a large number of criticisms of the US intelligence case have been presented piecemeal in RfCs and each, independently, eliminated, so that the overall effect is to present only the official US perspective. Russian sources are not allowed to be cited in the article. The BBC's consistent, guarded editorial policy on every one of their platforms since day one — to write about this as "alleged interence," or "possible interference," etc. — is treated as a fringe and disruptive POV. That is strong evidence of an article and talk page atmosphere that's in deep trouble.

In the mean time, SPECIFICO has been harassing editors who disagree with them with impunity. I've seen Thucydides411 repeatedly try to address content issues while facing replies that are ad hominem, vulgar, stupid, or worse. And I have the sense that you and MelanieN, while you don't personally behave like this, condone the behavior because you agree with the POV. The result is that acrimony runs wild on the page. So there are a lot of problems with the article. I'd suggested a dispute resolution on two occasions to handle this, but the idea wasn't popular. That's too bad because I think the only way to handle this issue would be through a mediated discussion, which forces everyone to edit collegially. It might also result in an outcome that no editor is happy with (including myself), but if that outcome were arrived at in a reasonable fashion, it would nevertheless be far better than what we have right now. -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Darouet, no. That old stuff is no longer relevant. I am sure that other admins feel the same way I do: if you don't have better evidence, if you have to resort to that, we don't need to take you as seriously as someone who can find real arguments. You're tarring and feathering, when (again--did you miss this?) the sanctions were lifted. Meaning VM had been a good boy. So it's over: I am going to consider such comments (depending on context) as personal attacks, hoping you will use this as an incentive to stop beating that horse. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, I just asked you, after your previous disparagements here, not to make aspersions about me without evidence. In response to my simple request on your talk page you come back here to do more of the same, even more? Your WP:NOTHERE, battleground theories of this project are beyond my comprehension. The amount of disruption you cause -- not just in politics articles (see this WP:TE slap -- is not worth whatever contributions you may have made here. And I note an aggressive pattern of tag-teaming and backscratching with Thucydides.[277] [278] [279] Do you discuss these edits or invite one another's comments off-wiki? Please don't be offended, but I see that you became very active here as Thucydides himself ramped up his American Politics campaigns and I happened to see this message on your talk page. I'm just asking a straight question. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"Do you discuss these edits or invite one another's comments off-wiki?" No. And while I'll provide more diffs shortly (I am pressed now), these three warnings that you placed on my talk page when we first began editing together are typical [280][281][282]. In the first one you accuse me of edit warring, but don't include diffs, and when I respond with diffs showing you're editing exactly as I am, you ignore those diffs, and don't provide any yourself. In the second post I've linked, you don't include diffs, and when I reply with diffs, you ignore them and drop the topic. In the third post, you again provide no diffs, and end up making a series of ridiculous "you are sexist" comments. -Darouet (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What is this supposed to be evidence of, exactly? Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil, by the way. Cjhard (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

While I don't agree with your sense of MelanieN, I agree that the general problem in this area is a result of inconsistent enforcement of Wikipedia's policies in the AP2 area. The idea that this [283] kind of behaviour is acceptable on any article talk page, let alone on a talk page under discretionary sanctions, needs to end. AP2 has gotten so toxic that MPants_at_work's suggestion below doesn't seem that bad, but that approach isn't really required. All that's required is that administrators apply the same policies to all parties in the AP2 as would be applied elsewhere. Cjhard (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I added a couple of quick diffs above. It's a conspicuous pattern. Editors in the AP area have seen it. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Observation Editors appear to be assembling primarily (though not quite exclusively) along the usual political lines. That means nothing will be decided here. Let's just close this and move on; no need to prolong the agony. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This is my sense as well. I suggest that everyone involved be put on notice that further PAs or excessive battleground behavior is not cool (and will result in blocks) as part of that though. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Should not the merits of the case be what matters, not why some editors are making their choices?Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course! And personally I support a topic ban at minimum, but unfortunately it's already pretty obvious that there isn't going to be a consensus for any particular action here. The thread is already in TLDR territory for anyone who isn't already invested in this debate, with bickering by the usual suspects drowning out & driving away uninvolved editors (hey, that's the same issue we have on the actual articles talk page - what are the odds!) Just put everyone on notice that the community is sick of this crap, and that the next PA or battleground violation will result in a topic van of non-trivial length, or worse. Then when it happens again (as we all know it will) it should be a pretty simple matter of taking it to AE with clear diffs and a link back to this thread. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, This matter is already at AE (with the discussion suspended pending the outcome here) so IF nothing is decided here, the AE process, which relies on Admin judgment, will resume. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Scope of the ban

I see that various editors are discussing "ban" in different senses. Some refer to a ban from the single Russian Interference article, and some are referring to a TBAN from American Politics, presumably as defined by ARBAP2. I don't think it is viable, and it's not usual practice, to limit any TBAN to a single article within a topic that has so many related articles. The underlying content and sourcing issues and the active editors overlap across many articles. I'd urge folks to speak pro or con in contemplation of a TBAN as defined by Arbcom in ARBAP2 "Pages related to post-1932 American Politics, broadly defined". SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As this will only cause drama. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I say an admin should sweep in and topic ban the whole group of Thucydides411, SPECIFICO, TheTimesAreAChanging, Volunteer Marek, Anythingyouwant, James J. Lambden and Darouet from all post-1932 politics and thereby cut all of the fucking drama off at the bud. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC) User:MPants at work, why leave yourself out when you presented no more evidence against me than against yourself? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC) You can't propose a shotgun approach to a problem and expect to be taken seriously. ValarianB (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest closing this thread (no one commented for a day) and reopening it at WP:AE. So far only one uninvolved admin (Drmies) commented above on the essence of the issue, rather than procedures, and I think their comments should be taken into account on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Second that. Also suggest that when people post my diffs here as evidence they make sure I know about the thread. Geogene (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

AE is a more appropriate forum, agree. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. ANI is useless for these types of matters which is why there were two Arbcom cases, and why I created the AE request in the first place. @GoldenRing: please reopen the AE request. Thank you.- MrX 15:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I will not object is this is moved to AE.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As Goldenring said above, "although admins are allowed to act unilaterally on AE complaints, if they decide differently than a consensus here then the chances of the action being overturned are fairly high." I urged people to move this whole thing to AE, but consensus was to resolve it here instead. We shouldn't just go back and forth between ANI and AE until there's consensus for sanctions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe GoldenRing is mistaken. See WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications.- MrX 20:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what part you’re referring to. It says “Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction”. It’s not for appeals by editors who failed to get a sanction on someone else. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing was not acting on any explicit authority to suspend the AE thread, and he did not say it is closed, only in suspense. The reason Arbcom gives enforcement of its mandates to Admins and to AE is to avoid the kind of free-range chickenpucky that everybody knows is the norm here at ANI. In fact, cases are accepted at Arbcom usually because ANI has failed to find a resolution. So this needs to go to AE. It has nothing to do with double jeopardy or forum-shopping. It has to do with ensuring Thuc gets a fair and orderly review before any new sanctions are imposed on him. And BTW, there's always the possibility of American Politics 3 -- a new, full-formed Arbcom case, if that's what it takes to get the fringe stuff and the aspersions and other time sumps cleared up. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I urged above that this go to AE, but people preferred the free-range chickenpucky here. Now that the free-range chickenpucky has not worked out so well, they want to go to AE. What a farce. I have long advocated that Wikipedia adopt a jury system where editors are picked at random to decide stuff. Instead we have free-range chickenpucky everywhere. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually it looks as if "people" was the single Admin who hatted the AE thread without warning. I was in mid-post when it happened. There's no reason why Thuc couldn't be banned by both a community ban and an AE ban. So I don't know whether there's any particular reason to close this prematurely. It's belt-and-suspenders. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I mispoke. Two things are possible. 1) No admin imposes a sanction at AE because of the lack of consensus in this ANI report, or 2) a sanction is placed, but overturned on appeal by a consensus of admins or a consensus of editors at AN. I would be surprised and very disappointed in #1 happened, because AE is not supposed to work that way.- MrX 23:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Once there's an AE ban, AN cannot reverse it. Community and AE are different birds. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes it can, if there is consensus of uninvolved editors, unless the sanctioned editor appeals to ARCA first and is denied. See WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications: "For a [appeal] request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN...".

I've never seen an AE sanction reversed at AN and unless I'm mistaken, I think this would be an unlikely event. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As I recall the AE was closed under the explicit understanding that if no decision could be reached here it would go there. Also (as I recall) I was told by some users to close this, rather then keep the AE open.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I hatted the AE thread but added a template to prevent it being archived. The request is on hold, not closed. I'm not sure the rules have ever been clarified around whether that counts as an AE action that can't be unilaterally overturned; I don't consider it as such and if an uninvolved admin wants to reopen that thread then they shouldn't feel they have to ask me. I'll leave a note there saying so shortly. I hatted the thread in part because it's just unproductive to have the same discussion simultaneously in two different places. And in part, as I said above, if an admin acted unilaterally at AE and then a consensus emerged here that contradicted that, it would almost certainly be overturned anyway (not to mention cause a lot of drama). Yes, it's possible for non-contradictory sanctions to be issued here and at AE, but it's also possible for there to be clear consensus against a sanction here and a sanction to be issued at AE. It was then too early, I thought, to say whether any consensus had emerged here, or was likely to, so it seemed best to let the discussion develop here. GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hatting the AE request was out of process. (See WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Dismissing an enforcement request - Note: "Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions."). AE requests are for presenting evidence of misconduct identified in Arbcom cases. Any consensus or lack of consensus here is irrelevant to those proceedings. As I have previously explained, ANI has consistently failed at resolving these types of conduct issues, which is why Arbcom and AE exist in the first place. @GoldenRing: Your comment above seems to suggest that you still expect this discussion to develop and that a consensus might emerge. If it does, that would be a remarkable anomaly in my experience.- MrX 12:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: As I've explained above, I didn't dismiss the request. While, yes, an admin can act against consensus at AE, as I've explained above, I think it would be unusual and unwise to do so. I didn't hat the discussion to prevent it being acted on, but the prevent other editors wasting their time having the same discussion here and there. I agree with you that this discussion now seems unlikely to produce consensus and if it's closed as "no consensus" then I'll immediately re-open the AE report; I don't have time to do the reading I'd like to do before closing it myself today. And, as I said, if another uninvolved admin wants to re-open the AE before this is closed, they're free to do so. GoldenRing (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting block of troll user

Problem editor User:Simply-the-truth has been involved in long-term edit-warring and agenda-pushing across WIkipedia, particularly at Michelle McManus (due to a clear personal dislike of the subject). Has had multiple talk page warnings for his behaviour (many of which he has removed),[284] has butted heads with many constructive editors, and has been identified as a "troll" by multiple users.[285][286] He recently followed me from Michelle McManus's The Meaning of Love (album) to Dark triad to make a WP:POINT-y revert, brazenly restoring vandalism that I had undone.[287] I can't believe he's avoided a block thus far. WP:NOTHERE. 95.213.136.218 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, removing warnings is ok. Secondly, only one person is calling him a troll. I believe he might be just unaware to some BLP rules. Though, the Dark Triad revert is a bit worrying, but I would wait and see if his behavior changes. (Sorry I sound a bit rough, I haven't been active in 4 months). —JJB^ers 00:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Trolling

I am a victim of trolling by a Wikipedia user User:Deb who made racially motivated remarks about my background, gender and religious believes on my Wikipedia talk page, as well as making various unfounded accusations about me. I have complained about this person's actions to the police. Trolling is not good for Wikipedia. Regards--WikiRecontributer47 (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No diffs from you, just a legal threat. You've been here long enough to know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have been through every single edit Deb made on your talk page. There is not a single remark about your gender, background, or religious beliefs. The only statement she made is that your editing shows a poor command of the English language. Either provide specific examples, retract the statement and apologize, or I will block you indefinitely for personal attacks. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This same issue was opened at WP:HELPDESK#Trolling; please choose a single forum for this discussion, to avoid appearance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

And likewise with no diffs, but with the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

And in response being told they needed to retract said threat: "I have not made any threats...and I have reported this to the authorities". Given the continued and doubled-down WP:NLT violation, combined with what is either a blatant case of WP:CIR or trolling on their part (the things they are accusing Deb of saying, using direct quotes, were never said), I've blocked. If they retract the legal threat, nobody need hesitate on my part to unblock them so this can be hopefully resolved, even though I personally don't see this ending in any other way but one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've interacted with WR47 for years and I've got no idea what they're up to at the moment. See this note I left them a few weeks ago where they deleted a load of content that they'd added to an article. Note that this thread was started after WikiRecontributer47 was listed at COIN by Deb. See also my earlier comments at COIN about WR47. Their edits seem dodgy and they're failing to communicate. The Bushranger (talk · contribs) has already blocked them, but regardless of legal threats, it seems to me that a block is merited. SmartSE (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Looks to me like a good block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• No comment on the "regardless of legal threats", since I've not looked into it, but this is not a NLT situation — NLT is meant for "If you don't do X, I'll sue you", "...I'll sue Wikipedia", and the like. It's not meant for "This person broke the law, so I've requested law enforcement, and would you please stop him on-wiki too?" Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• A complaint or threat of criminal complaint to the police is about as legally threatening as it gets. NLT isn't confined to civil actions. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• I think the frivolous nature of the complaint is what qualifies it under WP:NLT. A proper complaint about a criminal matter is not grounds for an NLT block. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Frivolous or not, "I have complained about this person's actions to the police" warrants a block, particularly absent any actual problem that would warrant such a statement.. This thread is an attempt to harass behind a (flimsy) veil of legal accusations. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to argue about why the block was warranted. I support the action of multiple administrators. However, the behavior of the blocked user was just weird, and raises competency issues. The OP gave this thread the heading of "Trolling", which may have been an accurate self-description. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe that what the user made does constitute a legal threat given what I've seen enforced in the past, and how "legal threat" is defined. However, I absolutely acknowledge the lack of wording on the policy page in regards to threats of this exact kind and in this situation here, and I think that this may potentially be problematic when it comes to enforcing this with confidence as an administrator.

If you read through the policy page, the summary paragraph links to the article Legal threat, which says that "[l]egal threats take many forms. Common to all is that the party making the threat will take some form of action of a legal nature. Most common is the threatened initiation of a lawsuit against the second party. Other threats might include an administrative law action or complaint, referring the other party to a regulatory body, turning the party into the legal authorities over a crime or civil infraction, or the like." However, the NLT policy page only references and makes examples to situations where editors threaten litigation (or to sue or file a lawsuit against another in court) and not a threat to involve legal authority such as the police or other law enforcement agency.

In the end, I think that we should acknowledge that the NLT polict page lacks reference to these threats specifically, and (if worse comes to worst) perhaps seek clarity for certain if the NLT policy includes these specific kinds of threats as well. I, however, believe that they do. If anything, such threats are disruptive and only cause damage to discussions by destroying them and making attempts to collaborate and improve the project harder on others. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line is "has the user stated they have, or will, take action or actions that will result in legal consequences for another user/other users/Wikipedia? If (y) = NLT applies". 'I have reported to the police' qualifies, especially when appended 'as trolling is illegal in the UK' (not sure if that statement is true or not, but they explicitly said that). It's a blatant attempt to at least imply 'you're in legal trouble now'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Are users seriously suggesting that if someone say, threatens a user with physical violence, that user could be blocked under WP:NLT for stating that they have notified the proper authorities? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that the person making the threat would be blocked so fast they'd ablate on the way down... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not getting into the specifics of this particularly case, you are frankly wrong here. I have reported multiple editors to various legal authorities for a number of reasons in the past - child protection being the main one. The WMF was/is amazingly bad at acting on child protection issues, and since 2 of those I reported for child protection issues were subsequently hit with SanFranBans (and one of those was under active investigation in the UK) I feel pretty confident I was correct. If you make threats of violence I will report you to the police. If you act inappropriately (trying to get personal contact with an underage editor being a big one) I will report you to the relevant authority. 'I have done X' is not a threat, it is a statement of fact. You cant retract something you have already done. If an editor makes RL threats against me, and I report them to the police, and then you block me for stating I have reported them to the police, you will very swiftly learn that the error of your actions - the WMF is not going to be drawn into a situation where it gets labeled as punishing the victim. 'No legal threats' is for editors who are making threats of legal action in order to enforce an on-wiki outcome. It is not carte blanche to block people who have reported actual or potential illegality to the relevant authorities! Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: I understood The Bushranger to mean that the person making the threat of physical violence would be hastily blocked, not the person reporting the threat. Lepricavark (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know, I was addressing his previous remarks where he made it perfectly clear what he meant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. I don't think this should have been an NLT block as CIR would have more than sufficed as a block rationale. Also, I find it amusing that the OP filed this under the heading 'Trolling'. It's fitting, but not in the sense the OP intended. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Using your example here: Even if the response to the threat of physical violence and stating that you're going to contact the police wasn't a legal threat, it's certainly a trout-worthy response if anything. Taking the disruption and and other factors out of the equation... what's the point of making that response in the first place? Wikipedia is not the place for this, and the user who made the physical threat at you most likely isn't going to care... if anything, it's only going to feed and encourage the user to continue threatening you; it's getting a reaction out of you and that's usually what they want. Anyways, I'm not going to delve further into this example. I see this getting way off topic, so I'm just going to leave it at that :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

'Don't do that or I will report you to the police' is a legal threat per the policy, 'I have reported your actions to the police' is not. Its not a 'threat' under any definition of the word in common usage or under Wikipedia's definition. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There are deep waters here. Because of roles I fill in RL, there are certain situations that I am legally compelled to report to the police (or, in certain situations, other relevant authorities); it would be a serious offence for me not to. And OID outlines some situations above where just common decency would ought to compel people to report situations to the police (child protection situations and so forth). But WP:NLT doesn't forbid doing so; it only forbids doing so and talking about it on-wiki. If there are users who are involved in a legal dispute with each other whether as a direct result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, it does not constitute a valid reason to block them, as long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia. So if you see something that needs reporting to the police, report it. There is no need to talk about the report here. If the police decide to follow it up, they will probably not thank you for warning the editor. GoldenRing (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no indication whatsoever that this is one of those situations or that Deb has in any way made me doubt whether I should be contacting the police; this was a general comment on the policy question, not on this situation. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing is correct, and I apologise if I was making things unclear: yes, by all means, if there is a clear-cut incidence of breaking the law, it should be reported! But saying on Wikipedia "I've called the cops on you" is something I can't see being helpful in the vast majority of situations, if not all of them. Make the report (to the authorities), request a block (from an admin), and ignore (the waste of oxygen). And to Only in death's last comment - by that intrepretation of the rules "I have filed a suit against you" is not a legal "threat" and it would be wrong to block someone for it...I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This has wandered off into hair-splitting, and perhaps is best continued at the NLT talkpage where we might improve the policy writeup, but I will note that I've called the police about things on Wikipedia that clearly needed police attention (back in the days before the WMF had a procedure) as a matter of public safety. That's very different from what appears to have originally precipitated this thread, which more or less amounted to "I think you're bigoted and I'm complaining to the police to have you removed from editing Wikipedia." As others have pointed out, CIR applies equally well under that circumstance. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The responder would have been better off not bringing up anything about calling the police. Mind the old saying, "Don't give away your trade secrets." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes made to article not reflecting source

User:Jaco IV has made a number of reversions to the List of Champions section of the Lega Basket Serie A article that are not consistent with what the given source says. I raised the issue with an admin (@GiantSnowman:) and he reverted the changes, but on being reverted himself suggested I try ANI.

The most recent change he has made is at [288]. The concerns with the changes are as follows:

• Generally not following the source at the Italian federation page
• Changed team names not as source
• Removing calendar years for seasons
• The same source has been added to the Performance by club section, but this does not reflect the information in that section, as the winners are not summarised by title but only listed by season
• Removal of a note relating to Milano clubs; re-adding the reference I removed about a revoked title, as this does not reflect the federation's summary source

In general the user does not put in edit summaries of these changes, or makes minor comments not providing many details, and has not put forward reasons for his changes that are reflected by the sources. Eldumpo (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Report of vandalism by unknown user.

A user with multiple IP addresses is constantly removing information from articles. His recent edits are shown here. He also thinks he is an administrator and he keeps on suggesting things like one [289] [290] [291]. It is requested to block this IP address from editing so a future edit war can be prevented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U1Quattro (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Those diffs only illustrate fine-tune improvements, not removal of information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP's edits are all just minor improvements. No vandalism at all.198.58.171.47 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not "suggesting things like an administrator", that's perfectly normal editing and improvements to the article. The OP is directed to WP:NOTVAND. And for future reports of actual vandalism, WP:AIV is thataway→. That said, I was originally going to close this with the prior statement, but after looking at the history of Koenigsegg Agera, I'm concerned about the OP's conduct there with regards to these edits: here the summary claims the IP edits were "misleading" (they were not) and restores a poorly-worded section the IP had cleaned up, while they included a "you will be reported" warning here on...a revert of a link to an essay that isn't even visible on the page and isn't clickable. Combined with their claims of the IP "thinks he is an administrator and he keeps on suggesting things like one" which is blatantly not the case, I can't help but be concerned that we have a WP:CIR issue brewing here. I'm not suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG yet, but I think some mentoring might be in order perhaps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point, especially as the complainant has only been here for 10 days and (AGF) may be kind of clueless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Shyamravi dumping large quantities of copyrighted reviews onto Mersal (film)

User has been blocked and an appeal to UTRS was declined. Nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 02:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On November 9, this editor was warned about copyright violations by administrator @Cyphoidbomb:, who suppressed the edits [292]. Today, despite repeated additional warnings to cease the behavior [293][294], and lastly a final warning [295], this editor has continued to dump large quantities of copyrighted text from movie reviews onto the Mersal (film) article. Examples include [296], [297], [298] and more. At this point, he is edit warring in an attempt to force copyrighted content from movie reviews onto the article, in violation of our policies on using such content. After the final warning noted above, he restored the copyright violating content yet again [299]. He has refused discussion. Not a single edit of 122 edits to date [300] has been to any talk page anywhere on the project much less his own user talk page. I am requesting he be blocked from further editing until he agrees to abide by our copyright policies. Editor has been notified of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Blocked. Will clean up, and will follow up on user's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

HRequest for edit deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I want deletion of the edit I made at User talk:Divy(a)95. I have been leaving an edit summary for every edit except the edit mentioned above. I want to have 100% edits with summaries. If the edit is deleted, I shall have 100% edits with summaries. Therefore, I request that the edit be deleted. Thanks for your time. Don'twasteTime 16:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• For the record: if you go to your Preferences menu, under 'editing' there's a tick-box for 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alaska911

Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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

---

An evidently WP:COI and WP:SPA editor, User:Alaska911, has been edit-warring with two editors for several days at Alaska Thunderfuck, adding promotional material, WP:BLP vios and non-RS citing like personal blogs and wikia. They have finally resorted to name-calling and threats in their edit-summaries. There has been no talk-page discussion by this editor except for one intemperate, belated post here that did not address any of the issues brought up both on the article talk page or on that editor's talk page.

Independent of me, User:Geordie has made these detailed observations at the article's talk page:

• The editor Alaska911 reverted in one fell swoop many corrections of punctuation, grammar, and style, rewording of awkward sentences and paragraphs, and removal of irrelevant, non-notable, and unsourced material.
• When this was in turn reversed approximately 24 hours later--and after an invitation to communicate on the article's talk page was declined--Alaska911 immediately reverted it again.
• In addition Alaska911 insisted that any changes to the article (referred to as "vandalism") first be submitted for approval on their talk page.
• Also, Alaska911 has not responded to assertions they are a SPA and in COI, both of which on the face of it seem to be the case.
• Plus, Alaska911 has descended to name-calling in edit summaries.
• And they're using threatening language towards other editors: "how about YOU take it to the talk page dumby or else your gonna get reported because I know a LOTS of admins that can do that for me...."

--Tenebrae (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As an interested party, I concur with User:Tenebrae  --Geordie (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23 has blocked Alaska911. Great to see Bbb23 back. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Copyright problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article St Brigid's Well has been blanked as a copyvio for over 2 years. It seems it was a copy&paste on first creation, and then dodged a speedy delete bullet. Candidate for Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over? Or is a formal deletion discussion necessary? I'm easy either way, just looking for the most efficient solution. Neil S. Walker (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

By all means, let's esquire.

–EEng

For some reason it is not listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Very old issues. I suggest that you esquire on that page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

But what if there are no knights who need attending on that page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps black knights? Blackmane (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I will add it to WP:CP under today's date for processing. Thanks for notifying. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Aha, sorry for making work for you - had I followed the links I should have thought to do that myself. Thanks for that. I've added a potential rewrite for the page in the usual talk/temp space. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article title change request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello! Could an administrator the title of the article for the album Blue Lips to "Blue Lips (Lady Wood Phase II)"? It is the official name of the album according to iTunes. The source is provided in the article. Thank you! AgWoolridge (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been disputed. Published sources and the cover say differently. This isn't the place to request page moves anyway. See WP:MOVE or use WP:RM/TR. Ss112 06:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive userpage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could a sysop please delete this userpage which consists of an invisible Youtube link to some sex offender thing - and probably indef the user as well. Quite obviously WP:NOTHERE. Home Lander (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

He also hit Template:UN Population with this thing - will clean up after him until his spree is over with. Home Lander (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, deleted. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism in mobile version of Gastroenteritis via Wikidata

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I apologize if I'm putting this report in the wrong place. When loading the article Gastroenteritis using the Wikipedia mobile app for Android, there is apparent vandalism in the "tagline" text below the article title, but above the beginning text of the article itself. I went to the page's source (on desktop) but wasn't able to find the offending text there, nor did I see any mention of it being removed from the article in article history. I'm unsure how the "tagline" text could even be vandalized in the first place, since I cannot find any way to edit the text from within the app itself and I can't find where the text is stored on the full site. -- 107.2.72.101 (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Cancel this. I just figured out where the information was being transcluded from. I saw the vandalism a few days ago and I must still be viewing an outdated version of the page, even though I've forced a refresh. -- 107.2.72.101 (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I just loaded this article on my phone and also found nothing unusual. Home Lander (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Please pardon for editing a close thread. The vandalism occurred on Wikidata in this diff on 10 November 2017. This is completely related to this RfC which sprang from a similar report in the spring at AN, here. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Samueljames400

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One of the nonsensical "contested deletion" insertions:

• [301]
• [302]
• [303]

He also vandalized my user page and creates a sandbox with my name on it:

• [304]
• [305] (one revision of User:Samueljames400/sandbox, I removed my name from it)

And later he vandalized the redirect page Lei Andrei Navarro, which I reverted:

• [306]

Samueljames400 (talk · contribs) continues to make disruptive edits after warnings. I don't know what the heck this user is doing, or what is the disruptive edits are for, but the edits he made imply he may be not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. He also does not make any communication at all and just continues with his nonsense, and disruptive edits. At this point I think an indef block would be necessary here; he was previously blocked before by Widr for the similar reason. theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that a lack of basic competence may be an issue here, but the result is ongoing disruption of the encyclopedia. I have given the editor an indefinite block, but will not object to an unblock if any other administrator sees any potential for redemption. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. Closing as done. theinstantmatrix (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by TrentonDaniel2003

After a change was made to a page I keep track of (Mariana Trench) to place scare-quotes in the lead of the article (specifically: In 2009, Marianas Trench was "established" as a "United States National Monument" – [307] and [308]), I had a look at this user's contributions list. (User:TrentonDaniel2003)

There seemed to be an overuse of the "minor edit" flag, which was slightly concerning. After looking at some edits more closely, it seemed there were some rather major edits that I'm having trouble believing were in good faith. I placed a message on their talk page ([309]), which got no response but was blanked.

One concerning edit was [310]. It seems to change large sections of the Superpower article, in particular modifying sourced quotes and sourced sections, as well as removing some quotes, so as to place the Soviet Union in the list of superpowers. (This also involved removing cited material in the 'Potential superpowers' section, and no addition of citations. The edit has since been reverted.)

They also seem to be engaging in edit warring on the List of wars involving the United States page. (As this is not solely about an edit war, I didn't think I should place it in the relevant section, though I've never reported an incident before.) The original edit was here, which was again worrying – it was marked minor, and had a vague edit summary ("Specifications", which seems to be a justification used on other edits). This was then reverted, but the user then re-reverted it. It was again reverted, and today (just three minutes after they blanked my message on their talk page) they again re-reverted it.

Since I tried to contact them on their talk page first, and it doesn't seem to have been acknowledged or responded to, I thought it would be best to try to get someone else involved who knows more about the process and can handle things better than I can. Thanks.

Throne3d (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Zimbabwe - heads up

Just a heads up that there are strong rumours of a military coup in Zimbabwe, with Reuters reporting tanks heading towards Harare. May be worth keeping an eye on related articles, including Robert Mugabe, Emmerson Mnangagwa (the sacked vice president), and Constantino Chiwenga (head of the armed forces). DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi DuncanHill - Thanks for the heads up. If any of these articles start experiencing a high level of disruption by many users, please let us know at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and we'll definitely take a look. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

We've got a new 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état attempt page now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mnangagwa, which is almost certainly a better location for any further discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Military takeover confirmed, the General called The Crocodile is taking over. Expect NPOV to go out of the window on these pages. TomBarker23 (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Repetitive vandalism of Riaz Mamdani page

Offending user:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.191.179.66

Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riaz_Mamdani&oldid=810648544

Please note there is repetitive inappropriate and inaccurate editing of "Riaz Mamdani's page". This includes false information about his children, saying he died from liver disease, that he was molested as a child etc.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbagepatch1 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Annabella (actress)

Annabella (actress) has some weird damage that I don't know how to fix or revert.64.175.41.99 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's similar to the section above regarding the background page, I've purged the page and that should be taken care of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

We need to start a vandal hunt. Somebody has figured out how to damage pages like this, and we need to stop it quickly. I'll look at the edit histories and look for any common factors. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC) There's no shared usernames. Either we have a sock puppet ring, or lots of editors have worked out how to hack the system. TomBarker23 (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to see an effective protection against this, short of protecting all templates (a new use for ECP, maybe?). The collateral damage would be large, but since these reports are trickling in at more than one a day now, it may be necessary. Removing particular editors who figure out how to do it is just security-by-obscurity. Tracking down which template is causing problems is also still pretty painful - time to start dusting off my show-me-the-source-with-all-templates-transcluded tool that I never quite got working. GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I see how it was done but probably best not to broadcast it! Suffice to say the vandal is blocked, the template protected and what people were reporting here were the pages’ server cache, which can be cleared by purging the pages. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to take a calculated risk in the hopes of getting something done about this: it was Template:"' (I found it using Special:RecentChanges, but only after it was reverted - I can provide the filters I used but they won't be useful in finding active vandalism), which is a redirect to a protected template that is used in citation templates. When protecting a high-vis template, please also protect all of its redirects. ansh666 19:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, well done. Sockpuppetry, was it? TomBarker23 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Carl Sargeant: Legal concerns in the UK (England and Wales) about saying that he had committed suicide

In the United Kingdom (specifically in England and Wales), "suicide" is legally-speaking a verdict, which can ONLY be returned by a quasi-judicial officer carrying out his judicial functions called a Coroner (himself or himself with a jury) in the Coroners' Courts, in an Inquest...in the UK, just because someones has apparently taken his own life, that doesn't mean that you are allowed to say that the person has actually committed suicide...anyone who doing this who is not the coroner is in effect commenting the results (the verdict) of an inquest in advance, and if the person is actually a resident, resident or ordinarily resident in England and Wales, he is in fact guilty of the criminal offence of contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (1981 c. 49) [311], which also covers coroners, Coroners' Courts and Inquests.

"Commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future criminal trial as the defendant may not be able to get a fair trial." [312][313]

To put it simply, Carl Sargeant, in his country of death, and legally under the laws of the same country of his death, CANNOT be said to have committed suicide at present. "Had apparently taken his own life" a maybe (just), but "suicide" definitely a no. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• BBC An ex-Welsh Labour minister who faced a party investigation into allegations about his personal conduct has taken his own life, it is understood.
• Telegraph: Welsh Labour minister Carl Sargeant takes own life days after being suspended over allegations of sexual misconduct
• The Guardian: Sargeant, a 49-year-old married father of two, is understood to have killed himself. North Wales police said on Tuesday that the death was not being treated as suspicious.

The Telegraph explicitly states "takes own life". I.e. suicide. Jim1138 (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your sources support the IP editor's point - you're allowed to say "killed himself" but in England you're not allowed to say he committed suicide. It's the very narrow committed suicide wording that is problematic in England. Of course, that doesn't count for Wikipedia which isn't hosted in England. DanBCDanBC (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Also, please note that because the WMF servers are located in the US, UK law is not controlling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's not controlling the WMF, Beyond My Ken, but very much controlling for UK-based editors :) — fortunavelut luna 12:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm aware of that, and almost included that point in my comment, but decided on not confusing the two issues. It's only a potential problem for UK-based editors who actually edit the article to say something which opposes UK law. And the "potential" is exceedingly small, in this non-lawyer's opinion - even supposing that the IP's point is accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not really an issue for ANI, but to the extent that there's a distinction between "take own life" and "committed suicide," we should go with what the sources say. In this instance the sources in th article use the phrases "took own life" and "killed himself," but don't use the word suicide. In which basis I've changed the article to "took own life."Agree with others here and in the talkpage that the specific legal issue seems unlikely to arise in Wikipedia's case. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say we were going beyond the sources in alleging suicide, which I see has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before the coroner. The intent to die must be proven as well as the act which caused death, both by that standard, and the UK sources seem to be avoiding the word "suicide". There are BLP concerns regarding his survivors, who might be grieved further on seeing the allegation here, which may never be proven. I think it was appropriate for the OP, who is probably not an experienced editor, to bring it to the attention of administrators.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

In England the word "committed" is more problematic than the word "suicide", and here are several sources (the Samaritans, the National Union of Journalists, the BBC editorial guidelines, the Royal College of psychiary) that ask us to avoid using the word "committed".DanBCDanBC (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

But experienced enough to know that you can't say someone (in the UK) have committed suicide before the Inquest has concluded (even regardless of what the family might say or might have said, or the family's feelings), that there can be no argument. ---- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The question was raised whether this was the best venue for the concern. I am saying "good enough". I bring up the family because I am less convinced by English law in its own right, than in our WP:BLP policy, specifically WP:BDP. English law convinces me only that using the word "suicide" prior to any proving of same may cause harm to living people; I looked at a journal article that indicates that families will go to some effort to avoid a suicide verdict being returned in favour of an open verdict, for example. That's what convinced me there was a BLP problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, this IP has been spamming a similar message to many of the article contributors, as well as the article talk page. Dragons flight (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I will just ignore that remark! --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Pasting the same message to many editors' talk pages is indeed spamming. I made no edits to the article about his death, and didn't need a message on my talk page about it. Next time, post your message to the article's talk page, and use Ping there if you feel that several specific editors need to be aware of what you posted. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The change is I am afraid not good enough. Even the BBC only went so far as to report that "An ex-Welsh Labour minister who faced a party investigation into allegations about his personal conduct has taken his own life, it is understood" (emphasis added). And User:Euryalus obviously is not aware of instances when the UK Press had got it horribly wrong [314]...UK online news articles these days (even from supposedly reliable news publishers) are (because of the 24-hour news cycle) no longer all automatically checked by in-house ex-solicitors (lawyers) before publication as they were 15-25 years' ago, until their legal departments actually receive angry telephone calls from the Attorney General's Office or from the Crown Prosecution Service. (I am afraid, if false allegations were made in the first place against the deceased, and the complainants were to be charged with involuntary manslaughter at a later date, their defence might e.g. then be able to use editing history in Wikipedia (amongst other evidence) to try and argue that their clients would not be able to receive a fair trial.) --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I've amended it somewhat. What is your thought now?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The Christopher Jefferies analogy is overblown. But Wehwalt's version looks ok to me. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Euryalus on this. I think the press have a pretty good idea of their legal position. Deb (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP has posted this sort of guff on a lot of user's talkpages (example) and it has the vibe of a WP:LEGALTHREAT - "...is a fine not exceeding £2,500 or 2 years' imprisonment, or both..." Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I've posted some gentle advice on the IP's talk page; we'll see if it has any effect. GoldenRing (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks GR. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• There is a view on WP that "UK law is not relevant to Wikipedia", held even by quite experienced editors. This is just not true. WP does not exist in a vacuum. WP is not on a par with the UK legal system (as it clearly considers itself!) and does not get to make legal rulings on issues like monkey selfie copyrights. Nor, in this case, does WP avoid the legal constraints that newspapers are bound by.

We should not use the term "suicide" in a case like this until it has been ruled as such. This should be so obvious that I am amazed to even see it at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I would have appreciated a notification that you intended to indirectly criticise me here, in a matter entirely unrelated, for reasons entirely unknown. I absolutely stand by my reasoning that the British legal definition of a political party is irrelevant. Wikipedia is based and hosted in the United States. The British courts and legal system have jurisdiction over Britain. Before going after us, maybe you should go after the reliable sources in Britain, such as the BBC, that have been saying Sargeant "took his own life". AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing in the linked sources (or elsewhere at first glance) which says that you can not or may not call it "suicide" legally, but you may say "took his own life" without any problem. One source linked above[315] says that "commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future trial", but makes no distinction between using "suicide" or "taking his own life" or any other way to say the same. It seems to me that the problem isn't with the word "suicide", but that technically we (or the BBC, Times, ...) shouldn't speculate about the cause of death in any way or shape. This seems an untenable position. Fram (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

And to that end, we're at least saying "reportedly took his own life", not a firm/conclusive statement, but equivalent to what the reliable media is saying. We're fine - this is how we handed Robin Williams' suicide before it was ruled that (which took several months before it was confirmed). --MASEM (t) 15:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I have no problem with handling it this way, but I was amazed at the claim "We should not use the term "suicide" in a case like this until it has been ruled as such. This should be so obvious that I am amazed to even see it at ANI." when I couldn't find any indication that the term "suicide" is the problem, and not the "alleged" vs. "definitely" aspect. When there is reasonable reason (from reliable sources) to presume suicide, it is perfectly allright to write "presumed suicide" or any of the other terms for the same. Avoiding that single word seemed weird, but was alleged to be a problem (and even an obvious one). Fram (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP's specific concerns are correct as they stand. UK editors are bound by UK law on any material they edit. Likewise UK law is clear on pre-empting coroner's verdicts, however unless you are a news organization, they are highly unlikely to ever be prosecuted under. The reason most UK sources use 'took their own life' is a combination of the above (don't call it a suicide before a coroner has confirmed it, 'suspected suicide' is as close as they get) and that UK consumers of media generally prefer a lighter touch with issues involving death. Rather than the more exact but less emotional 'committed suicide'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a slightly silly conversation, nowhere in the world is it possible to say with CERTAINTY, how someone died until/unless post-mortem, police investigation etc. Suicide/ murder/ accident or other are only suspected until that time - except when obvious natural causes of course. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

But in England it's possible to have a coroner verdict saying he killed himself, but that it wasn't suicide. In that case should we use the normal English word with its normal English meaning, or should we use alternaive phrasing? (I'd prefer almost anything over "committed suicide" - died by suicide; killed himself; took his own life.) DanBCDanBC (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a content or style dispute, not a behavioral problem (except the IP committing to spamming and/or NLT-sounding comments). Editors interested in the general problem of "to commit suicide" should perhaps participate at WT:MOS#Use of "died by suicide" at the David Reimer article instead of expounding here. --Izno (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I had a similar issue come up while editing an article in which information usable to order precursors for military nerve agents had been placed into the article in violation of several provisions of Title 18, US Code carrying lengthy prison terms.

I finally reported the issue to Wikimedia Foundation Legal as our guidance suggested. The attorney I corresponded with told me that while WP:NOTCENSORED was final guidance regardless of where our servers are domiciled, legally troublesome edits are often not encyclopedic edits. In that case, WP:NOTJOURNAL was sufficient to remove the overly detailed (and helpful to would-be terrorists) edits. Other editors and I were able to make an informative encyclopedia article that didn't have troublesome details in it.

So, even when publishing certain information might be a Federal felony in the US, where wikipedia's servers are located, Wikimedia Foundation's legal staff suggested that the correct guidance was not to censor, because WP:NOTCENSORED is controlling guidance for us, but to determine whether the troublesome information is encyclopedic in nature. In the case of the term "committed suicide" raised by the OP, none of the sources seem to actually have used that exact term. Each source used a circumlocution which avoided that precise term, so concluding that the subject of the article "committed suicide" could be WP:SYNTH. The issue is that some paraphrases actually go beyond paraphrase to suggest the outcome of an inquest, and that could violate our guidelines. loupgarous (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Assistance needed with COI gone PA...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

...on Firebird Skydiving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). An obvious COI with a corporate username - Firebirdusa appeared and started making unsourced alterations to the page. They have been informed regarding COI and the need for referencing, and replied with "google us". I softerblocked and pointed them to the fact that wasn't how Wikipedia referencing worked, and now they are personally attacking editors reverting their unsourced COI edits and making a personal-attack username - Bushrangersmama. I'm amused, but they're well past 3RR when you combine the softerblocked-account, the PA-account, and their IP edits, and the personal attacks are continuing - see the article history in edit summaries, [316] and [317]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm really sorry guys, but instead of helping all you do is block people. If people that run the page would actually know what they are writing about, they would have seen that the information on the page is obsolete and inaccurate. I wasn't aware of any username policy or COI which was my mistake. But again, if you guys don't help new users but only delete and block then, then i guess wikipedia doesn't care that it is full of misinformation. And yes, going on the website that is on the wikipedia page would have made anyone clear that the edits were true. Anyway, if you felt personally attacked, then i'm sorry but you should use your power of admins in a helpful way. over and out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushrangersmama (talk • contribs) 04:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

We need a big banner at the top of every article that says "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FACEBOOK". People keep confusing us with them. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that the user has been linked to the relevant policies and advised to read them, I'm not sure what further help they would desire. (And the only block handed out - so far - was a {{softerblock}} on account of WP:U, so...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this company even remotely notable? Blackmane (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As a (former) manufacturer of aircraft, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I blocked Bushrangersmama as a username violation and semi-protected the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:162.72.18.252 is obviously the same editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It is, but that's not technicaly block evasion as at that point the only block was the softerblock on Firebirdusa, and they had, at that point, chosen to resume IP editing instead of creating a new account. The new, now-blocked account came after that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jytdog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jytdog has been harassing me on my usertalk page; citing me for an edit war which did not occur. The article in question is Historicity of the Bible Banzernax (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that Banzernax was removing sourced material from the article and replacing it with his unreferenced POV. He notes on my talk page he does not require references as it is, "the word of God." Ifnord (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say that he is POV Pushing on the article, and adding biased information. Banzernax (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Banzernax, please let me correct you on two accounts:

1. You have been edit warring [318], [319].

2. Jytdog has not harassed you. They have posted once on your talk page, and that was a standard WP warning about edit warring, posted after you engaged in edit warring.

To put this in very simple terms: you are wrong and Jytdog is right. Period. Jeppiz (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I have not been edit warring. That is only two diffs. You need four. Banzernax (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You need to go back and read again how WP defines edit warring ... Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

And where does it say that? Banzernax (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:EW: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG springs to mind. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

OP is clearly edit-warring. Not a xtian thing to do. -Roxy the dog. barcus 14:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• I’m not sure if the OP is trolling or just lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia but either way they are heading for a short stay here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've semi-protected the page, since it seems to be getting a lot of problematic traffic from new accounts. That will keep Banzermax from passing 3RR for the time being. There's no problem with Jytdog, obviously. Acroterion (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    • You just want to silence the Christian majority. I have posted on AN to get rid of you. Banzernax (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• It appears to me that this sockpuppet WP:FOWLPLAY is simply trolling. No new user brings up ANI so rapidly and appears more concerned with time wasting than actual editing of articles. Ifnord (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• The user has moved onto this page. The above comment -- WP:NOTHERE. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Banzernax has apparently come to WP to preach The Truth

Historicity of the Bible

• here 14:22, 18 November 2017 (no edit note)
• here 14:25, 18 November 2017 (edit note: This is the correct version
• here 14:38, 18 November 2017 (edit note: Ifnord, you are wrong and I am right.

Historical Jesus

• diff 14:53, 18 November 2017 (no edit note)
• dif 14:55, 18 November 2017 (edit note: God is the source

And they have been blocked for 31 hours, here. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Indef block of Banzernax

This user is obviously trolling, as evidenced by their actions here, on articles, and on AN. Most likely a sock, and definitely not here to contribute. The sooner an admin blocks, the less time is wasted. Jeppiz (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

See above. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing based on their clear intent to edit war on multiple pages and rhetoric here. Depending on their reaction to that, we might not need to indef. There are issues with their editing, but I typically like giving people a chance. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

<ec><ec><ec>Endorse Tony's action. I'm not convinced the arrival of DrivebyChristian (talk · contribs) at the subject is a coincidence. Acroterion (talk)

@Acroterion: Sock  Blocked and tagged. GAB^gab 15:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe that would be grounds to extend the original block.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect to Tony's original block, I've indef'd. The user's conduct, editing pattern (WP:PACT, with actions like that and so quickly I can't in good consience extend good faith this is a new user), the socking, and the wording when they tried to forumshop all add up to a user who is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm behind the indef block as well. There's no reason to have an incompetent editor pass off some religious propaganda as "word of God" - and it endangers the veracity of the encyclopedia if we allow such actions. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 04:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael A. Aquino (lieutenant colonel)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could a sysop please address Maquino's edits at this page. They claim to be Michael Aquino, and keep deleting the content claiming it is defamatory, though I don't see any defamatory content in the latest revisions. Home Lander (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, highly defamatory: Cadet Colonel, Distinguished Military Graduate of the University of California, honorably retired after 38 years' service, Silver Star, Ph.D., political science professor, etc. I have trimmed the bit about the occult, the "daily alternative news blog" source failing WP:ELNO as well as WP:RS. I wonder if that's the basis for the objection? Nyttend backup (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend backup. I figured I had to be missing something there, perhaps that was it. Home Lander (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• For what it's worth, take a look at Michael A. Aquino's bio on Amazon.com. Not a reliable source, of course, but, assuming that it's self-written, it does seem to imply that the occult stuff is accurate. I'm sure RS's could be found for anyone interested in doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like this has been deleted before at AFD: [320]. Peter James (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Good find. An IP removed the G4 tag and repeated the controversial claims in an edit summary. As the previous article, even if it was 9 years ago, was deleted and salted, the titling of this article looks a lot like salt-evasion, and we may well have a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE scenario as explained here, I've gone ahead and nuked it. Now it's possible he could pass WP:AUTHOR, but this is a case where that would need to be established and demonstrated before the article is recreated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
      • It was moved from Michael A. Aquino, that's still a redirect. Peter James (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Instant sunrise applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

New editor adding and removing spaces

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

TroppoRoxxo is a new editor whose only mainspace contributions have been to add or remove blank spaces on seemingly random articles. Some examples from today: 12345678910111213141516. (Their User space edits were adding images and a small amount of text.) This may be an attempt to game 500/30 restrictions or maybe they're just NOTHERE. In any case, I AGFed and left them a welcome message and warning to use the sandbox but they've ignored it. Woodroar (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Possibly a new sock of ConsumersDistributingonline, which is already awaiting a CU at SPI. Home Lander (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's certainly possible! It feels like every week someone else is trying to bypass 500/30. Woodroar (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Added this account to the SPI per this complaint, and the Checkusers can take it from here. Home Lander (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks! Woodroar (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Woodroar: The account has been blocked by Bbb23 as a sock of ROXELANA22. Home Lander (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bizarre edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A recent series of inexplicable trollish and disruptive edits by User:‎Batreeq. I for one am not amused. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like he somehow nominated the main page for deletion, but that's been done before as a mistake with automated tools. Home Lander (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Then I am mistaken. WP:AGF. Sorry for shooting up the flare. I apologize to User:‎Batreeq. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

See User talk:SoWhy/Archive 25#deleting_main_page regarding the main page. Home Lander (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat at AfD: Tricomplex numbers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[321] - not unlikely to have been socking prodigiously in that thread already. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The underlying IP address that made the edit was blocked for 36 hours. Slasher405 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

199.101.62.36 inability to interact

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• User:199.101.62.36 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please see User talk:Jim1138#please do not touch me, the edit summary of [322] and this message. My impression is that unlike requests to specific editors not to post anymore at one's talk page, refusing that one does because of a supposed geographical location appears problematic... —PaleoNeonate – 08:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note also this edit summary: "i do not interact with North American users yet! all North American users are banned from interactnig with me even reverting me". Yeah, no, this isn't going to fly here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked for two weeks. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks

User:Nixiao1983 had, on his discussion page, blatantly told editors to "[s]tay away with "visa policy of China", if you do not want to be "Chinese", you can go to US or any other countries". I have no idea if he was responding to my concerns or other editors' as well. The editor recently made changes to Visa policy of China regarding political status of Taiwan without consensus building of any kind, after explicitly stating that "Taiwan is a province of China".

This user's action clearly broke several Wikipedia guidelines and a separate NPOV issue will be raised in the NPOV noticeboard. C-GAUN (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• @C-GAUN: @Nixiao1983: I wouldn't call that statement a personal attack, as much as a lack of civility. I don't think it rises to the level of AN/I intervention, although I think bring the matter to WP:NPOV/N was proper. As that appears to be the better venue to work out this dispute, I recommend closing this action here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

nixiao1983 Taiwan residents can apply for passports from People's Republic of China when they visit or live in mainland China. and they can be elected into national congress of China. There is no "Taiwanese" or "nationals of ROC", only "Taiwan resident". Speaking of ROC, how many Taiwan residents recognize it, do you know? GAUN? We can do things democratically if you prefer, ask all Chinese people (over 1.5 B population) including Mainland, Taiwan, HK, MC to vote, what we choose to call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixiao1983 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This editor is obviously another one of those nationalist sorts that periodically pop up. My take would be to nip this in the bud and just indef them now to avoid the obvious time sink. Blackmane (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a POV-pushing nationalistic SPA who edit war to prove his agenda [323] (replacing ROC/Taiwan by "province of Taiwan"). I agree - indeff. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat

Avtr2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wants Seatrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) deleted from Wikipedia, has been removing content which I have been restoring, and has suggested getting Seatrade's legal department invloved on talk page Jim1138 (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If this was a BLP, they'd have a case, but this is a corporation and somebody needs to let them know they don't WP:OWN their article [324]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Article has been fully protected. Jim1138 (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I read them the riot act about WP:OWN and WP:DR, hopefully that will be enough. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm calling WP:DOLT on this one. Even if it does evolve to a full legal threat, Seatrade seems to be a network of companies, and we need to make sure we're actually describing it properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a legal threat. But even forgetting that, the user's COI is obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Zimbabwe: who to belive, Wikipedia or BBC/CNN?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Politics of Zimbabwe lists "unknown" and "since November 17, 2017" as President in the box near the middle of the article. The news is reporting that President Mugabe just gave a speech and isn't quitting.

Normally, I would correct this myself or discuss it on the talk page but when one is dealing with the President of a country, I wanted to seek administrators' advice. Thank you in advance for correcting the page or leaving it like it is. Vanguard10 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I see you are a new editor so I am guessing you have not read WP:NORUSH or WP:NOTNEWS. The BBC is probably right, but we are volunteer based so it could just be nobody has edited the article yet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It isn't the case of nobody editing the article yet. It could be vandalism. It could be a joke. The addition of "unknown" happened today. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

He certainly isn't resigning, even though he is no longer party leader (did anyone tell him?). So it seems we'll have to wait for formal impeachment, which might take weeks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted, as Mugabe still appears to be President (until the Zimbabwe army and/or ZANU-PF tell us otherwise). As an aside, looking at recent changes I'm amused by "coup de Tate" - you just can't trust those art galleries. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha.. Cheers for the giggle. It's been a long day. nagualdesign 22:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

One can also say "uncertain" with a link to the coup de Tate article; when the situation's ongoing, it doesn't hugely matter who the officeholder was until recently. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

He's just a big sweetie really, isn't he, as is the lovely Grace? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quick block of IP 93.188.36.237 needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please can someone do a quick block of this IP? They're just rapidly reverting lots of edits without reason. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

And done. Thanks Ymblanter! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There have been a whole spate of different IPs engaging in similar rapid fire vandalism in recent hours. I blocked one of them a few minutes ago and other administrators have blocked others before I could get to them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's an odd one. Totally different ranges and countries. Without jinxing it, they seem to have gone away. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's a vandal bot operated by an LTA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This kind of reverting LTA is still happening, although there's now a new filter in place in an attempt to stop this. See 69.55.127.4. Only 3 reverts are made, but on the filter log there's alot of them. theinstantmatrix (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Allan Rayman

Our article about musician Allan Rayman has been having problems with anonymous editing that I'd like to bring to wider attention. The issue is that in some of his early marketing materials, he tried to cultivate a mystique by claiming that he was from Lost Springs, Wyoming, a town with a population of just 4 (and that's not a typo, I literally mean four as in two plus two.) Some early sources that only had the press release to go on repeated that claim, but every source that's ever been based on actually talking to him in person has just said he's from Toronto without mentioning Wyoming at all. So, our reliable sourcing requirements being what they are, our article (which incidentally had to be fundamentally rewritten from a grossly advertorialized start that nearly got speedied) goes with "based in Toronto", which is true, without taking a stand on whether he was born in Toronto or Wyoming — but several times since then, various IP or new editors have tried to push it back to Lost Springs, Wyoming again, sometimes even removing the strongest source from the article entirely because it's too unmistakably clear about saying he's from Toronto. Most recently, someone claiming to be Rayman's manager flipped the origin to Lost Springs, Wyoming in the infobox again, also blanking the entire article in the process so that the infobox itself was the only thing that was left at all. Obviously, that's been reverted.

Obviously, Wikipedia is a venue for reliably sourced and neutral information, not for replicating musicians' own publicity kits, so we have to go with what's said in reliable sources. Even as now written, his notability under WP:NMUSIC still isn't being brilliantly demonstrated, but trust me that it's a thousand times better than it was at first.

For the moment, I've semiprotected the article to lock out IP and newly-registered editors, but obviously I don't want to leave it that way any longer than I absolutely have to. But I don't want to have to keep dealing with this on my own, either, so I'd like to request some assistance in getting it more widely watchlisted to prevent the problem from recurring again once sprot comes off. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Added to my watchlist. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• Mine also. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• Original article reads like Rayman's manager wrote it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

American Canadian Expat In London 10404

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

American Canadian Expat In London 10404 (talk · contribs)

New editor, unsourced and implausible claims that 85% of Southport have American ancestry [325] (many similar claims - see contribs). Edit-warring to push this. Some suggestion that they're a sock.

I don't know what they're up to, but it's clearly not anything useful. Block, then cleanup. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Designaccountforher. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a former editor from Canadian IPs from 2005-2008, 2012-2014 and odd occasions then. This is my only account, if you discount the IP addresses. And I'm a she, not a he. --American Canadian Expat In London 10404 (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

NOTHERE. Block. Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be User:Bearfield1, whose accounts were blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joaquinito01/Archive#07 November 2017. It should be a separate case, unrelated to Joaquinito01 - earlier accounts include User:NigelHowells and User:Renamed Imposter Account 000001. Peter James (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits like this demonstrate their motive is simply to add spurious content. Neil S. Walker (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

According to records, the main account has been globally locked due to cross-wiki abuse. So, even if there was socks resurrecting, they should be globally locked as well, to prevent any further abuse. It's pretty blatant that those who create secondary or more accounts to continue this kind of trouble are simply no match at all. Slasher405 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It's Bearfield1 (also globally locked). That account is mentioned in the Joaquinito01 case but it looks unrelated. Peter James (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Even though it may be that account, the other main account may be the concern that the reported user could likely be linked. If it passes WP:FOWLPLAY, a checkuser could look into this to see which underlying IP address is behind all of this. So much time is being wasted here. Wonder what might happen soon? Slasher405 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Already checked [326] and inconclusive as a proxy was used, but looks unrelated to those accounts. Peter James (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked as an advertising-only account; (to be exact, advertising- and disruption- only.) . DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Good job. I guess we can close this discussion. So much casualty by so many accountants. So much time wasted. It looks like that we made up for it here. Slasher405 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

110.132.8.37

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, could someone do something about User:110.132.8.37? This person's undoing lots of random edits, including user talk signatures, cutting comments on talk pages, line breaks, and even userspace edits. Please don't undo all of them blindly (this edit was good), but it looks like someone's just going through Special:Recentchanges and randomly hitting "undo". Nyttend backup (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This clown is bothering me too. He hit my Sandbox page and my Talk page with reverts that he claimed were due to me being a new user. Hello. I reverted one of his edits on someone else's page, but I didn't want to get tagged as a 3peat vandal or whatever you call it, so I didn't undo any more of his edit reverts. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• It’s that vandalbot again. Take a look at their filter log. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is all so interesting. I'm not an admin but I am a geek from way back. So I love this stuff, like the link you just showed me. Very cool. Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Jytdog jumps the gun

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Instead of actually engaging in discussion, this user User:Jytdog communicates only in edit summaries, warning templates and direct threats.

He skips directly to level three warning templates, with no prior warning levels: [327]

He then immediately jumps ahead to edit warring accusations: [328]

Specifically, he's using the wording "heading towards 3RR" which tells you that he himself is aware he is premature with his warnings. Did I violate 3RR? No.

This despite how I

1. ) have engaged him in talk page discussions: [329]
2. ) we are the only two people actively involved [330] [331]

This comes across as intimidation. This user is abusing the system to make threats, presumably in order to make others like me back down.

Now, did I first discuss this with the user? No.

Why? Because even a cursory glance at the ANI archives show Jytdog has been involved many many times before. I can also see (on his talk) how he has recieved several angry messages from users before, and even temporarily been relieved of some priviliges at more than one instance. Clearly he's a combative editor, and since I consider his actions against me to clearly be in violation of both decorum as well as procedure, I'm bringing this to your attention right away.

In short: I would like to ask you to tell him to please stop being so trigger-happy with warning templates, to instead actually engage other editors in discussion, and most importantly: that intimidation and unsupported blocking threats will only get a single user blocked: himself.

Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User has been notified: [332] CapnZapp (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• There is actually no hard-and-fast policy against or penalty for using level-3 or level-4 warnings, even upfront, nor is there any policy against or penalty for posting warnings, period. So either way, your recourse is to make your case on the talkpage of the article(s), and if that doesn't work, neutrally notify a WikiProject talk page or utilize some form of dispute resolution. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• In short, Jytdog is mostly right. The image can't be used because it's source is other Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source, and so he's correct to remove it. I'd drop that subject there. He should have given a better explanation than unsourced, but, whatever. On this front, however, he most certainly will not blocked.
  I'd say Jytdog uses an over liberal application of warnings, a level 4 warning was completely unnecessary, and also factually incorrect. Yes, Jytdog, you're right, but, you're at 2 reverts giving a "you will be blocked" warning to a person for a single lone (1) revert. This has never, ever, constituted an edit-war. That said, bringing it here is absolutely no better. Resolve the content dispute elsewhere and delete/archive (or ignore) the warning. Tl;dr - No action required. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Wikipedia isn't a source and as such Jytdog was right to remove the image, I would suggest this gets closed with a warning to Cap anymore of this will result in a block, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How about this gets closed with a warning to Jytdog that any more of this will result in a block?

Sourcing is one thing, but so is behaviour towards other editors. Jytdog has a problem with this and it is way past time that he grew up and learned to behave appropriately. If he can't do that, if he can't sort out an issue such as this without resorting to scare tactics, then he is the one who shouldn't be here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Talk about jumping the gun. Please see the discussion at File_talk:Age_of_Consent_-_Global.svg#Sourced.28.3F.29 where you will see that I replied, and pretty quickly, and the aptly named CapnZapp replied twice in quick succession at 23:14 and 23:16 (the first time giving a false answer about where sourcing was identified) and then a few minutes later restored the images (diff at 23:18 and diff at 23:19). The high level unsourced warning was aggressive of me but this editor ignored BURDEN and really blew off the discussion about a key content policy. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing disruptions from ShaneFilaner

ShaneFilaner (talk · contribs) is known to insert unsupported/poorly supported changes in articles and often uses deceptive edit summaries to try sneaking things in, most recently by fabricating sales here. He's been repeatedly warned on his talk page not to do so and has been blocked twice for fancruft. Making up a figure entirely for Canada is what got him blocked last time, and I've warned him that his deceit doesn't go unnoticed. It's obvious at this point that he doesn't take past warnings or blocks seriously. Someone needs to block him for continued WP:IDHT actions before he disrupts Wikipedia even further than he already has. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah in this case numerous explanations have fallen to deaf ears. Either a case of WP:IDHT or WP:NOTHERE both applies, but I tend to believe that its the former case. A big block is needed, and an administrative intervention if this doesnot work. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Acalamari thankfully has blocked him for a week. Hopefully that helps teach a lesson. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious editor, seeking to subvert consensus at multiple articles

WP:DENY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The diffs speak for themselves. -Removed nonsense- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.140.47.228 (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC) You have to inform the specific user, the easiest way was using the template message, but which one you are trying to report to this noticeboard? Matthew_hk tc 05:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC) The difs do NOT speak for themselves. You wanna try again in a less obnoxious manner? --Tarage (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC) yeah, ok. 209.140.47.228 (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued harrassment by GeoJoe1000

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been repeatedly harrassed by User:GeoJoe1000 in his various guises and from a variety of IP addresses for some time. I had temporary semi-protection put on my talk pages a few weeks ago, but GeoJoe1000 returned almost as soon as that protection expired. It is quite clear that he has no intention of stopping this any time soon:

"Maybe if you had learned something from this, I would leave. But, to paraphrase the words of your lying meatpuppet, you just want everyone else to go away so you can do what you want, the mindset of a 6-year-old; this isn’t improvement, it’s regression. The fact you keep berating me for acting the same way you are is laughable. Just imagine if you had chosen to keep to yourself and maybe even be friendly. Problem solved. Have you ever thought of… not responding anymore? Why keep digging a hole to prove you don’t belong on this site? Just let this be the final word so you can learn from all this."

I have not acted like him at all. My handling of this situation has been beyond reproach. But he has singled me out because I called him out on his behaviour and was critical of his rude and aggressive attitude. I don't know what he expects to come of this, but he clearly expects to humble me in front of other editors, or humiliate me should that fail. I have not "acted the same way that he did"; I have never told anyone to "Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit", call someone "a complete asshole, and I hope you die" or invite them to "Again, fuck you. You are a toxic, worthless human being" for the simple crime of disagreeing with them.

Could somebody please do something about this? Preferably something more permanent than blocking an IP if it is possible. This has gone on for quite long enough, and I am concerned that it is escalating towards something that will require suppression. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have semiprotected your talk page for a month, Prisonermonkeys. Speak up again if the disruption resumes at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Cullen328. It's unfortunate, but based on past experiences, I fully expect that the disruption will continue. This has been going on since the end of July. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If it happens again. I will extend the semiprotection for a much longer period. Just let me know, Prisonermonkeys. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failed login attempts

Today, I received several dozen failed attempts - all apparently within minutes - to login to my account. Has anyone else experienced this? Sort of alarming. Isn't there some way to discern the IP of the would-be hacker? Thanks, GAB^gab 16:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As to experience, this is fairly common and quite many people have reasons to have a strong bout of admiration for active sysops:) I also recall, that Spiffy was recently targeted by VirajMishra in a near-similar modus-operandi.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I had several hundreds yesterday, and already a dozen today. They were so nice to leave me their IP address, which is 216.25.187.3 .--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Yes, I'd seen that you had knowledge of that IP, so I was hoping that we could find this one (for a block). GAB^gab 18:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

They do not edit anyway, and I believe they can continue breaking in even if they are blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a good chance to remind admins (in particular) to use a unique, strong password on Wikipedia. You may want to run your email address through have i been pwned to discover how frequently your credentials have been leaked elsewhere. And, where possible, use multi-factor authentication, which (happily) Wikipedia supports (don't forget your backup codes!). --Yamla (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jasonanaggie

(The following is copy/pasted from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where User:Kralizec! wrote, "This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to WP:ANI." Forgive me if I've failed to follow protocol to the letter. I didn't realize that reporting blatant vandalism would be so difficult!)

• Jasonanaggie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Though I haven't issued any boilerplate warnings this user requires some immediate administrator attention for his persistent, blatant, anti-Russian POV vandalism. I left a couple of messages on his talk page after cleaning up his mess. Other users have also reverted many of his edits, though I'm not sure they realized the extent of his meddling. nagualdesign 14:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Some diffs might help your case. I agree that some of his edits on the Time line of Russian interference in the 2016 ellection are basically "anything that is about negative US/Russian relations". But I am not sure they are anti-Russian so much as naive in what constitutes "Russian interference".Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, his edits to Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections were the least of my worries. There were a dozen or so articles where he shoehorned in the (alleged) news that "RT officially registered as a Foreign Propaganda Outlet", some of which he inserted multiple instances of the same nonsense, and there have been more edits than I care to count to BLP articles and articles about TV shows where he changed the infobox descriptions to "Russian State Propagandist" or "Russian State Propaganda", presumably on the basis of RT now being officially registered (in his eyes) as a "Foreign Propaganda Outlet". I expect there's more but I grew tired after about an hour of cleaning up his mess. I haven't got the energy to find, copy and paste diffs. Basically, almost every edit he's made in the past few days at least (ignoring the Timeline article) have been variations on a theme. nagualdesign 19:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

...Okay, in an effort to do some of the leg work for you I went digging for diffs. It turns out that Cullen328 has already had words with him and he (Jason) reverted many of his more inflammatory edits (to BLP articles) himself. Here are just a few diffs in reverse chronological order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23... You get the idea, right? nagualdesign 20:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As the administrator at AIV who recommended that this issue be brought here to ANI, I could not in clear conscience block Jasonanaggie for vandalism after seeing that he had self reverted many of his questionable edits after his discussion with User:Cullen328 on the matter. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I tried to fix the issues in question that were objectionable to a few people, I am sorry if I missed a couple, I will try to get any others that might be objectionable. I am not trying to offend anyone here. Sorry if my good faith edits were seen as malicious, they were not intended as such. Jasonanaggie (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, and you'll have to pardon the expression, but this smells like bullshit to me. This has nothing to do with edits that might have been objectionable to a few people. It's about blatant and rather transparent POV pushing. Moreover, I don't think anybody here has said anything about being offended or felt that you were being malicious, you simply flouted several of Wikipedia's fundamental rules. And now, because you can't pretend to have been unaware of the rules you were breaking, you're attempting to deflect the issue by wringing your proverbial cap and saying how very sorry you are. It's laughably transparent in my eyes, since I wasn't born yesterday.

As far as I can make out, you were given a formal warning by Cullen328 for labelling perhaps a dozen or so people and organizations as "Russian State Propagandists" - a term which you spun solely on the back of RT America (not the whole of RT) falling foul of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which simply means that they now have to disclose financial information - so you undid those edits. Then you changed tack and started inserting what you thought you could pass off as referenced material, notwithstanding the fact that you were grossly and deliberately misrepresenting the source, into any and every article you could. You went back to every article where you'd undone your previous edits and basically made another that you thought you could get away with. In one article you even inserted the same paragraph five times. Perhaps you could explain what motivated you to do that? Or maybe you'd like to say you had no idea that that wasn't a good thing? We're all ears. I'm particularly interested to hear you explain your thought process when you invented the term "Foreign Propaganda Outlet", and whether the irony of your actions is lost on you.

I'd put it to you that you don't like RT very much. You tried very hard to find every opportunity to 'dutifully inform the world' that RT is the propaganda wing of the Kremlin, and everyone that works for them is some kind of 'gubmint shill'. And now you're going to pretend that what you thought you were doing was becoming of an encyclopedia, right? Okaaay. nagualdesign 00:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I just realized what this notice board was for; I have no anti-Russia nor any other country of origin bias. If it appears that way it may be because I have recently focused on the Robert Mueller investigation into the 2016 United States Presidential Election Interference, it has surprised me how much this subject has blurred across all lines of the Russian Government and Russian Business sector as well. To cover this story it has been necessary to cover many things I didn't even know about before this topic came to the front burner. I appreciate the need to view things from a neutral viewpoint and I appreciate the reminder we all can get somewhat involved in the minutia at hand and not realize how it may seem to someone from a different ethnic background. I truly have nothing against the Russian People, much of my family comes from that region, what I am focused on is the regime of the Russian Government, not the Russian People, these are very different topics. Please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding that may have been caused by me. Best, Jasonanaggie (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha... "Homophobic? Moi?! Some of my best friends are gay!" Haha... You must think we're all idiots. To be clear, despite another of your attemts at deflection, nobody is accusing you of anti-Russian racism. You're obviously just some sort of conspiracy nut who thinks the Russian government are conspiring against the good people of America, and you'd like to use Wikipedia to hawk your own brand of tin foil hats.

I find it doubly amusing because just the other day I was having a conversation with a friend of mine where I was arguing that when one finds oneself filled with righteous indignation, chances are that you're about to do something rather foolhardy because you're not really thinking clearly. Then along you came and exemplified my point to a tee! Go on, admit it, you thought you were doing the Good Lord's work, or somehow acting in the interest of the greater good. nagualdesign 00:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually I was just trying to convey my sense of regret that the actions in question offended anyone, as that was not my intent and I seek forgiveness and will not take such action in the future. This is my mea culpa. Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep up, Jason. I'm not asking you what's motivated these public displays of penitence. They're simply your reaction to being caught out. What I'm interested in is you explaining the motivation for all of these edits you've made. Obviously, if you can bullshit explain your way out of it you'll be off the hook. So I'll ask you again, what motivated you to go back to every article where you'd undone your previous edits per Cullen328's request (BLP violations and the like) and make another series of edits where you grossly and deliberately misrepresented the source? You must surely be well aware that you invented the term "Foreign Propaganda Outlet" yourself, which certainly wasn't how Reuters reported it. That's what we mean by POV. More to the point, why did you copy/paste your POV into one article a total of five times? What did you think you were doing, and why? Please attempt to explain yourself instead of wringing your cap. nagualdesign 17:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I warned Jasonanaggie quite forcefully about his edits to Abby Martin, a BLP on my watchlist, after he listed her occupation as "Russian propagandist". That conversation began on his talk page and continued on mine. I am very disappointed that this editor has continued their tendentious and obvious POV pushing. Perhaps I overemphasized BLP policy since it should be obvious that this style of editing is completely unacceptable on all articles, not just BLPs. I am not sure of the best course of action, other than to say that this behavior cannot be allowed to continue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Actually, this is an outcropping of the incident you are referencing, I went back after you had mentioned this and removed anything I thought could be offensive in the way you saw it. I evidently missed a couple and it ended up here. I have not added anything else since you alerted me of this issue. I understood that this was an issue when you alerted me to it and I have ceased such action. Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me make this perfectly clear for anyone reading this who hasn't quite followed the course of events. Jason is now telling porkies. Yes, he went back and removed his first swathe of edits where he labelled many people and organizations as "Russian State Propagandists", but 'missing a couple of edits' is not why he's ended up here. As explained ad nauseum he returned to those pages and re-inserted his POV in another form. Since this has been explained several times, and he was already aware of his own actions before being caught for the second time, the fact that he's now misrepresenting what happened constitutes an outright lie. nagualdesign 17:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: I am going to take the high road here and not respond to your ad hominem attacks directed at me. Personal attacks are not the way to get your message across and I have kept my comments to the issue at hand, not the character of the individuals expressing their views in this discussion. Please refrain from attacking me personally as I won't respond to these types of attacks again. Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Pointing out the fact that you are lying, assuming that that's what you're referring to, is not at all the same as an ad hominem, but I sincerely thank you for taking the high road. You're a good egg, Jason! Now back to the questions raised above and the proposal below, since you're online, would you please respond to those. Thank you in advance. nagualdesign 00:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

In case it escaped your comprehension, the lie you told was, "I have not added anything else since you alerted me of this issue." nagualdesign 00:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal - Jasonanaggie

I'm not sure how this sort of thing is normally handled, since I've never had cause to involve myself in such proceedings. For what it's worth I'd like to draw people's attention to the first post I made on Jason's talk page (before I realized the extent of his edits) and suggest that if he takes the suggestion I made seriously then he might be allowed to continue editing Wikipedia. And by taking the suggestion seriously I mean he ought to be topic banned. nagualdesign 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Jason logged on over an hour and half ago and left a comment above suggesting that I was making ad hominem attacks. In fact he used the word 'attacks' (and 'attacking') four times in just three sentences! I consider this yet another painfully transparent attempt at deflection. I asked him once more to provide some sort of explanation for his behaviour but he has apparently declined again. Though he has used the phrase mea culpa I'm not at all convinced that he actually understands what it means or is willing to acknowledge what he has done wrong. Saying "I'm truly sorry" multiple times is irrelevant.

I'm growing tired of thinking about this, to be honest, and unless someone pings me with a specific question or request for comment I won't be returning here for the time being. I strongly suggest that Jason be immediately and permanently topic banned unless he provides some sort of convincing explanation for his behaviour and can answer the questions that were asked (which is never gonna happen). I'll leave it to the administrators to bring this to a swift close so that no more time has to be wasted on this. And thank you to those involved. Regards, nagualdesign 02:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: Its handled by community consensus after several days of discussion and multiple cited examples of warnings or wise words having been given but not listened to. After that a proposal comes forth for a ban or other editing restriction(s) which are given in simple English and cover the areas relevant to the editor(s) in question. After community consensus is reached, an admin will close the thread and log whatever action is implemented (if any) at Wikipedia:Editing Restrictions under "placed by the community". Incidentally, you can check out the editing restrictions page to find the relevant ANI discussions that lead to editing restrictions to get a feel for how this all goes down if you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, Tom. I think I'd rather spend my time doing other things as I find this sort of thing incredibly tedious. I've believe made my position clear enough. nagualdesign 20:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Church of God of Prophecy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Church of God of Prophecy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Im4god (talk · contribs)
  

Would someone mind resolving a very slow edit war at Church of God of Prophecy? User:Im4god persistently replaces "The COGOP is a Pentecostal Holiness Christian denomination" with "...Christian non-denomination" and removes the founder's name and date of foundation from the infobox, and past edits have also involved problems such as deleting Category:Pentecostal denominations in North America and adding unparseable stuff like "The Church does agrees an individual be a Christian (born again) without being a member of the Church." Here are the last fifteen items from Special:Contributions/Im4god:

• 21:04, 7 October 2017 Church of God of Prophecy — [no edit summary]
• 17:21, 8 January 2017 Church of God of Prophecy — (Undid revision 757852161 by Shearflyer (talk))
• 17:19, 8 January 2017 Church of God of Prophecy — (Undid revision 755571721 by 98.163.252.185 (talk))
• 13:33, 4 August 2016 Church of God of Prophecy — (Undid revision 732895406 by Jasonanaggie (talk))
• 21:29, 3 August 2016 Church of God of Prophecy — [no edit summary]
• 21:28, 3 August 2016 Church of God of Prophecy — (Undid revision 730348255 by Jasonanaggie (talk))
• 01:15, 7 May 2016 Church of God of Prophecy — (Undid revision 718658209 by 24.177.82.215 (talk))
• 03:33, 4 February 2016 Church of God of Prophecy — (Undid revision 702711796 by Nyttend (talk))
• 02:36, 21 November 2015 Church of God of Prophecy — (The Church of God of Prophecy is not a denomination and text should reflect it to be consistent with the Church's organization.)
• 02:17, 17 November 2015 Church of God of Prophecy — (→‎Beliefs)
• 02:14, 17 November 2015 Church of God of Prophecy — (Undid revision 687594836 by 2602:306:C835:BD09:884A:7602:DCF7:6B77 (talk))
• 17:02, 13 November 2015 Church of God of Prophecy — (Undid revision 689438997 by Nyttend (talk))
• 17:01, 13 November 2015 Church of God of Prophecy — (Undid revision 689439494 by Nyttend (talk))
• 21:49, 30 July 2015 Church of God of Prophecy — (Undid revision 673807339 by 2602:306:C576:28B0:8C0:C5A0:556:E2B9 (talk))
• 18:53, 18 July 2015 Church of God of Prophecy — (Undid revision 671799019 by Nyttend (talk))

I'm one of two users who's left warnings on the user's talk page, but he clearly isn't getting it. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the last one for 24h, because they only revert and do not discuss anything. If they continue, they must be blocked for longer terms and eventually indef. However, generally I do not see many options here: Many reverters are autoconfirmed, and full protecting the page indefinitely does not seem reasonable at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

One vandalistic edit in the last 11 months? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

If you mean the editor I blocked their last edits are all reverts, and they have been warned previously. They are clearly a single-purpose account, and they are apparently not interested in discussing their edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the editor Im4god, who has 1 edit in 11 months, that one being about 6 weeks ago. If it were me in your shoes, I would indef, since it might be another 11 months before he edits again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I considered this option, but we can always indef them, it is never late to indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The complaint was about an edit made six weeks ago, which was the only edit by the user in the last 11 months. So a 24 hour block is meaningless. But as you say, if he strikes again, he can be dealt with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Im4god is just misguided. He kept insisting on re-doing certain edits that were then undone by multiple other users (such as turning "denomination" into "non-denomination" in the intro). CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• I blocked the user, mainly to gain xyr attention. Xe is simply not listening. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beneyal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone place a (temporary) block on this Beneyal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user. They seem to be continuing to ignore messages to stop creating articles about numbers from various editors. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 18:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• I unfortunately believe that this is another editor who has no idea that their talk page exists, or how to reply. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Done I've nuked all of his creations, and rolled back other edits. Whether a block is required will depend on what happens next. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've actually already blocked as you were doing that. If they respond and acknowledge the problem, anyone can unblock. --Jayron32 19:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sbmeirow: Ruinous edit followed by gross insult

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello

Today (or depending on where you are, yesterday), Sbmeirow added revision 811213235 to Comodo Internet Security. It is totally a good faith edit, no doubt about it. But it is a wrong one: The infobox already displays this information along with a source; the good faith edit lacks one. (More information on this feature can be found in the infobox documentation.) Hence, I made a reversion.

Since Sbmeirow is an editor with 7 years of career, 65,122 edits and the rollbacker right, I decided to send him a trout, a standard and popular way of reminding an editor that he or she has made a mistake.

His response was explosive: He called me "asshole" and complemented it with "Fix it or STFU" (I had done already) and later "Best regards to your scumbag comment". Worst, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comodo_Internet_Security&diff=next&oldid=811216035 he responded with a counter-revert].

One thing is clear: All avenues of discussions are now closed. Sbmeirow does not even want to listen to me, let alone hear that I am saying he has done something wrong. I propose Sbmeirow to be banned from making a similar edit to this article and his rollbacker right be taken away. Clearly this person neither has the temperament nor competence for the privilege.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You say yourself that it's not a ruinous edit, just a duplicative one. Pointing out that the infobox was pulling from another template would have been a bit more useful than having a trout be the first response. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I forgot to add that the infobox already has a source too. The good faith edit is ruinous because it removes the source. –Codename Lisa (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec)The trout was honestly a bit much. A simple "hey I reverted your edit, just FYI here's why" would have gone over a lot better. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. For newcomer, yes. For an old timer, it is the standard method. It has proven extremely popular in the past. –Codename Lisa (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It may be your standard method. It is not mine, nor do I often see it, though I am no arbiter of popularity. I'd say both parties could stand to be a bit more respectful, and leave it at that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dumuzid

I am not saying my message could not be improved; in fact, I am a proponent of the view that without problem, there is no progress either. However, when I was a newcomer, I worked on an FA with two of Wikipedia's most tricky editors: Malleus Fatuorum and FleetCommand. I never responded with profanity, even though Malleus Fatuorum reverted me a dozen times. A WikiDragon like Sbmeirow must definitely know better.

But let's see what he has to say for himself and let's see if the problem of deteriorating editing stops.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On one hand, The Trout contains language similar to "don't take this too seriously", and responding to it with a series of attacks and explosive epithets seems a bit beyond the pale. On the other hand, Codename Lisa didn't attempt to explain what the not-at-all-obvious mistake was prior to reverting twice, suggesting Sbmeirow should try to figure out the justification for the reverts themselves, then starting this thread which contains the only explanation that I can see for having reverted in the first place. If anyone should earn a trout here it's Codename Lisa: telling someone "let's see if you can see your own mistake" is kind of insulting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(after ec) Rob has it exactly right here. Saying "hey I reverted your edit, here's why" is a proper course of action, even if you had included a Trout. Saying "hey I reverted your edit, try and figure out for yourself what you did wrong" is belittling and doesn't help anyone. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It's Rick, not Rob. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Bah, now I'm going to get a trout. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

{{minnow}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with what others have said. The problem is not the trout, it's the downright rude comment that you sent along with it. I wouldn't react Sbmeirow as did, but it's well within the expected range of reactions to such a comment. Perhaps the level of rudeness in the message wasn't intentional, but it is there, and this report is an overreaction. Cjhard (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed that the response had nothing to do with the serving of seafood, but with the comment that was attached to it - which I have to say I find slightly interestingly was not diffed originally: [333]. Yes, it was still a bad reaction, but given the "old timer" reasoning, the baiting (for that is what it was, intentional or not) was also entirely unnecessary. Suggest this be closed with mutual fresh servings of trout and a reminder of WP:CIVIL on both sides before antipodean hunting devices come spinning into view. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• @The Bushranger and Ivanvector: Hello. :)

I have a feeling that the main problem is being overlooked here. Sure, we editors sometimes leave suboptimal comments; e.g. wrong tone, wrong focus, wrong for the target audience. But we assume good faith and try not to read too much into it. But there are distinct red lines that a mature editor with 65,122 edits and 7 years of career length must not cross, in one single post:

1. Use of seven filthy words
2. Displaying contempt
3. Disregard for the subject of discussion, and commenting on the contributor at the same time
4. Reverting another person's edit out of contempt, especially in presence of a message that says there is problems with it (most important here)

In fact, our expectations from a mature editor is much higher: If an immature attacker goes to a mature editor's talk page, chastises him/her for, e.g. contribution to a Microsoft-related article (because Microsoft is "the personification of evil"), use profanity and threaten that mature editor with death by fire (purification) should he/she continue the "evil" conduct, we expect the mature editor to maintain high standards of civility against this person. But there is one red line this mature editor must not cross: He/she must not chase the said attacker reverting their action out of contempt.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Not to diminish any of that, but it doesn't change the fact that your original bear-poking comment was also over the line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Now, now. That was super-exaggeration! While I will definitely take Ivanvector's advice in the future, my user talk page message was definitely not as bad as examples listed under Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear § Examples of poking. It was a good-faith message. Sbmeirow's action is far more closer to those.

In addition, I have had no significant prior encounter with Sbmeirow to indicate that he is a bear. But if you do know for a fact that he is a bear (i.e. a repeat offender), then perhaps my presence in this forum is far more justified than I initially thought.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved editor (and probably an "old timer", considering how long I've been around): At the very least, this looks like an example of jumping into ANI a bit early. Codename Lisa left an unhelpful message on Sbmeirow's page - one which I would have at least responded to with a pointed request to be more specific, had it been me she'd communicated in that way with - and Sbmeirow responded in an uncivil way, both in terms of words and subsequent actions. There's a considerable gulf, surely, between that sort of exchange and running straight to ANI as has happened here, unless this isn't the "last resort" I've always understood it to be. At the very least, this sounds like the sort of complaint I'd make when I was younger and had been poking my tongue out at my siblings in the back seat of the car and got a rude gesture or a punch in the shoulder for my troubles - "It takes two to tango", as my parents would remind us both. Yes, Lisa's original message was meant in good faith and good humour, but different users have different senses of humour, and perhaps that's also the lesson from all of this. Either that or the fact that dances involving fish rarely end well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, BigHaz :)

Well, that's perhaps the most useful and helpful message in this whole thread. I can certainly understand coming here a bit early. Next time, I can make another attempt in communication before coming here and let him do another reversion. (However, for the record, in my experience, it is futile. A person who performs the first revert will also perform the second.)

There is another matter too: In the past, when I have gone the length of explaining the actual problem, people have accused me of being condescending. They have explained that they are intelligent, sane editors and me going the length of telling them what is wrong is actually insulting their intelligence. I was trying not to insult anyone's intelligence and I ended up doing exactly that.

So, here is what I am going to do: From this point on, I am going to write a humorless, troutless, professional, no-nonsense message and not feel guilty for insulting anyone's intelligence.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• No action needed: Yes, it was fine to point the mistake out to Sbmeirow. Even trouting was probably okay, even if I wouldn't have thought it significant enough to merit it. It's the jab in the ribs in the message itself that, in my view, excuses Sbmeirow's snap at Codename Lisa. The comment was flat out rude. I'd be grateful if ... you actually looked at what you edit. Let's see if you can see your own mistake this time. The latter half comes off as especially pedantic, almost like a teacher telling off a student. I'm going to assume that Codename Lisa intended her comments to be a bit of friendly, albeit snarky, banter rather than joyfully and maliciously rubbing Sbmeirow's nose in his mistake. Unfortunately, I've found in life that, even in face-to-face interaction, snarky banter usually winds up getting misunderstood as insulting. With written communications, especially on the internet, that problem is magnified substantially. I don't intend to get pedantic myself, but I think we might all take this as a teachable moment rather than a reason to call for sanctions on anybody.
  Note that I say the jabs excuse the snapping; I don't think the snapping is justified. Sbmeirow should have responded differently, to say the least. A deep breath before responding, or even ignoring the comment entirely, would have probably led to a better outcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please block User:Pro Reality, Pro Science, Pro Traditional Values, Anti Postmodern, Anti Libtard per their contributions.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pro Reality, Pro Science, Pro Traditional Values, Anti Postmodern, Anti Libtard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Thanks.- MrX 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Thank you

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of headphone manufacturers incorrect use of flags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I do not think the use of national flags is in accordance to WORDPRECEDENCE in the Manual of Style (flags section). To me it is an eye sore and a carnival. the flags do not add information. The country name is not attached to it as MOSFLAG requires, and the entities represented are companies and brands, not political or military entities to be represented by a national flag. Consensus on this? Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Although it's 'nice', it falls afoul of MOS:FLAG. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree, a clear MOS violation. Besides, in the case of most electronic manufacturing companies the use of flags is meaningless; all they're doing is indicating where the head office happens to be, since the actual country of manufacture will almost invariably be China, South Korea or Poland. ‑ Iridescent 13:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this something that requires administrator intervention? Seems like you should post this at Talk:List of headphone manufacturers, or if it's a project-wide issue, try Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons or maybe one of the village pumps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No, not an admin required issue. Just wanted some quick answers before I refactor, and the article's talk page might take some time. Thanks for the confirmation. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steve Laury, persistent reversion of a sensible redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Steve Laury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I can't revert to redirect again without edit warring, but this is a long term problem, with the subject already blocked and presumably using a farm of meat or sock puppets to reclaim a vanity bio. I've requested page protection and a block of the most recent IP, but this really merits something more, I suspect. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Go ahead and revert. It looks blatantly promotional, and you should be fine reverting. Blatant vandalism is an exception to the three revert rule. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, but he's going to keep at it all night, and one has other things to do, like sleep. But he also has articles here for his solo albums, several of which make claims to notability, so I'm wondering if an individual entry isn't merited. That said, it can't be the spamicle that he's determined to own. So there look to be a few issues here, the first of which is blocking the COI accounts. Then the bio can be assessed on its merits. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  Page has been semi-protected by TonyBallioni and reverted to the "last good" version by your truly. Primefac (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Now Mr. Laury's using the article talk page to post the promotional version. Again. So we need protection there, too. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It's odd that 66.66.156.187 (talk · contribs) isn't blocked yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I left a message for Laury on the article's talk page. I have my doubts about whether this guitarist is truly notable, but am certain that the overtly promotional content is not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock request

Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Hi. Please can someone do a rangeblock on the 117.228 range at the top of this list? They pop up almost daily to add unsourced content into articles, jumping from IP address to IP address. 117.228.21.49 was blocked this morning for this, but they've returned this evening at 117.228.32.38, doing the same thing. I'm convinced they are the same user from the 49.34 range on that page, which was previously rangeblocked in October. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Done I'm usually very reluctant to block big ranges, but there's hardly been a single edit that isn't from this vandal for a month (and those that weren't about cricket weren't that useful). 117.228.0.0/16 blocked for a month. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Black Kite. I didn't know how big the range is/was, so hopefully there's no collateral damage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Eyes on Charlie Rose (TV series)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Charlie Rose (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Show has been suspended due to Rose's alleged sexual harassment issues, but we're getting IP's who don't understand 'suspended' doesn't equal 'cancelled' and are filling that in the infobox, along with the cancellation categories. Until we get confirmation (I'm sure it won't take long to do so), we can't have it in there, so if we could get semi-protect on there. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

He's been suspended from CBS, and PBS has suspended distribution of his interview show. Nothing's been cancelled. Yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we're done here. [334],[335] 129.9.75.193 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a couple of days so the status isn't repeatedly changed without good referencing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rachel Ko and her edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Rachel Ko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• K. Wah International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rachel Ko is a user that seem have COI and refuse to disclose any COI, but just talk about her edits. She keep on upload files to en-wiki but almost the same as svg commons-wiki file File:KWahIntlHoldings logo.svg (the actual logo of the company was on the left, the text were merely text but not "text-logo"), claiming "new" logo, this is the third logo she upload File:KWIH logo 20171121.png, which is the same as the first and deleted one. The second logo she uploaded was due to delete today. Matthew_hk tc 04:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There has been a longstanding problem with promotional editing surrounding Lui Che-woo and K. Wah International, from numerous accounts with undeclared COI. These users seem to be marketing professionals here to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. Despite being warned multiple times, the above user has skirted around the question of whether or not she has a COI. A case of WP:NOTHERE. These users should be banned – this kind of promotional editing is a nuisance and completely incompatible with the goal of building an encyclopedia. Citobun (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

the caption or author of the file, seem indicated they were obtained from internal PR template of the company, not from outside by obtaining from the official website. Matthew_hk tc 07:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excessive, hasty deletion nominations by a new editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ReeceTheHawk (talk · contribs) is a new, young editor who seems very keen to get involved in administrative tasks. Unfortunately they do not appear to be applying the level of competence required to do so. In a short span of time several editors have asked Reece to slow down or adjust their activities in a number of areas ([336][337][338][339][340]), but particularly with regard to their poorly thought out nominations for deletion ([341][342][343][344][345] and WT:AFCR#Unreviewed drafts at MfD). They generally haven't responded to these warnings (except rather hostile responses to WikiDan61 [346][347] and Magnolia677 [348]) but have removed them from their talk page which I assume means they have read them. Unfortunately they have not heeded them, and today nominated a further ten articles for deletion, almost all for dubious reasons, several of which have already been speedily closed. I don't relish pouring cold water on his enthusiasm for Wikipedia, but we all know that spurious AfD/etc. nominations take up a lot of volunteer time, and when applied to drafts or new articles they can be confusing and excessively bitey for other new editors. I think at this point we need admin intervention to get Reece to back off behind-the-scenes tasks until he is prepared to do his due diligence in learning our policies and processes. – Joe (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I for one have !voted WP:SK per criterion 1 on one Afd that was subsequently speedily kept and closed this one for the same reason. I've also placed what I believe is his third caution or warning on his user talk page. I think there needs to be a marked improvement, or failing that, a halt in Afds, or risk a temporary topic ban. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yours was his fifth warning about deletion specifically, by my count. Reece's habit of quickly removing messages from his talk page seems to have the effect that multiple editors are telling him about the same thing in quick succession, perhaps unaware that he's already been told. – Joe (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I might have thought a couple weren't warnings but messages -- but anyway, I see you've speedily closed more of his Afds. His nomination statements typically combine some form of vague WP:IMPERFECT statement with a suggestion of merging or maybe being unnecessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I warned him/her about not having a valid reason for deletion in virtually all of their nominations. The next nom s/he produced had a valid reason.198.58.171.47 (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Jumping in here as an involved admin. I left a message for Reece offering such assistance as I could provide after I'd seen his AfD nominations for a couple of days (these two were the first I came across, and I'll admit to having been attracted by the remarkable article titles!). While he deleted that message shortly after I left it, my offer of assistance does still stand. I'm yet to see any evidence that he's deliberately here to disrupt, so much as very enthusiastic and perhaps making the mistake of jumping in head-first without proper guidance. My offers of assistance are always contingent on the fact that I know what I know, and can point the other user in the appropriate direction for others with more specialised knowledge, so if that or my involvement in the matter makes me less useful to assist, that's fine by me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A new user. Early edits to WP:RFPP. Picks up Twinkle pretty quickly. Lots of spurious AfD and MfD noms from early in their editing history. My sock sense is tingling. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Not saying they definitely aren't a sock, but I think it's hasty to suspect socking when a new account quickly tries to get involved in administrative tasks (heck, I did). Ironically, an IP contributed to this thread above and took the time to contact the user regarding their conduct. If this IP suddenly registered and continued editing in the same way it currently is, it would fall into the same vein. Home Lander (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I posted to his talk page three times warning him that he was headed for trouble. I'm a nice IP. Re socks, as far as I can see, a named account is as likely to be a sock as an IP account... but that is neither here nor there. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I left a detailed message on ReeceTheHawk's talkpage here discussing the use of tags on an article, including "much has been written about...how to use tags appropriately, such as Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup and Wikipedia:Responsible tagging. I urge you to familiarize yourself with the established practices for the types of edits you have chosen to make". My message was deleted, after which this editor continued to tag articles unnecessarily. For example, at Sae Rojanadis the article was already tagged as having no sources. Then ReeceTheHawk tagged it here saying it needs additional sources. This editor has been cautioned and advised many times, but seems determined to do it his own way, which unfortunately, is not an improvement. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  
• Comment (My Response) - Hi guys, thank you for all your messages and suggestions, I have took them on board and have made and will make a few changes to my editing from now on.

I really did appreciate the suggestions I got from some of you. Magnolia677 not being included because he usually makes excessive, volatile, and unhelpful suggestions and messages to people, as we have seen with him in the past. However I did like the suggestions / messages I received from 198.58.171.47, and BigHaz, as they really know how to get their point across in a good, appropriate manner. Thank you. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@ReeceTheHawk: Since you appear to want to take the community's advice to heart, I recommend a less confrontational communication style on your talk page. Deleting other users' messages without replying is somewhat dismissive, and gives the appearance that you don't care about the opinions of others. A simple "thank you" or even "sorry, I don't agree with that" is more constructive. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That's good to hear, Reece. I'd also recommend not immediately removing messages from your talk page. If nothing else, it will stop different editors warning you about the same thing multiple times, which I imagine is frustrating. If it gets too long, you can archive the older messages. – Joe (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@ReeceTheHawk: I'll third those comments about not just removing the comments, particularly if you feel they're constructive. Even if nothing else, it allows for a bit of clarity if (for example), someone comments and says "I'm not sure why you tagged XYZ for deletion", you can then reply directly below them and outline your concerns, they can reply to you and so on. Gets harder to do that when the earlier interactions are hidden away in the page history. Speaking of which, I've got a quick suggestion I'll make on your Talk page in a moment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I made this kind of mistake. Have a look at my talk page. Just saying, I don't think he's a sock. TomBarker23 (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Has anyone examined this editor's earliest edits? (I.e. do they represent a new, young & inexperienced editor?) I'd like to known his basis for applying this tag. --IHTS (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - ReeceTheHawk was explicitly cautioned by me here about tagging stub articles with a "lead too short" tag. He deleted my caution, and then tagged another short article that had no sections here with four tags, including a "lead too short" tag! So, User:BigHaz left a second personal message here telling ReeceTheHawk to avoid tagging short articles with a "lead too short" tag. ReeceTheHawk doesn't seem to be listening. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Which Reece then removed with a response which I would describe as "obfuscatory" at best. I've replied to his reply (and WikiDan has remarked on his removal of text again), but I will admit to having my assumption of good faith being tested here, particularly in light of Reece's earlier comments which sounded a bit more positive. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Final warning issued. Please report any further problems here, or on my talk page, and I'll block him. There's being a newbie (we all were once), and then there's being a bull-in-a-china-shop newbie, bouncing from disruption to disruption, not listening to advice (with an attitude problem too). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a report per se, but I'm a little concerned with Reece's response, which I'm sure you've seen but just in case. The wording of "I won't do any of those 3 things again" sounds promising, but having grown up with two younger brothers I know it can just as easily mean "I'll do something else unhelpful instead, and complain that I wasn't told not to". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (My Response #2) @BigHaz you're right, it could 'just as easily' mean that, however, what I said doesn't / won't mean that. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@ReeceTheHawk:: Good to hear. Given your previous responses to advice and suggestions, though, I think you can see why I was sceptical. I'm happy to be proven wrong here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Apparently, BigHaz's concern was right on the mark. Reece has earned himself a 1-week block for reverting other users who were trying to correct his mistakes. New mistakes, same attitude. And, once again, has blanked his talk page to obscure the block notice. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brendar 1214

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Brendar 1214 (talk · contribs)

I don't understand why this user wasn't blocked after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brendar 1214, now they have re-created the article for whose AfD they created the sock. Fifteen AfC attempts, votestacking, more AfD disruption, and disruptive re-creation is more than enough rope. Icing on the cake is refusal to answer this legitimate question about motive. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Let me know if the disruption continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with Bri that this user should have been indeffed at the SPI (or at least now). User is a highly disruptive and persistent (and apparently COI) sockpuppeteer. Pinging Beemer69, Mailer diablo, NinjaRobotPirate. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to an indefinite block, but I figured maybe we could give a last chance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The reason I didn't put a block outright was along the same train of thought of giving this editor a last chance. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

At this point I'd say that train of thought has derailed. EEng 15:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Brendar submitted the same article fifteen times before its official deletion, and recreated another immediately after that was deleted. She was combative during the LaReece AfD discussion process, including removing content and socking. While I believe in second chances, it's clear her ship has sailed. Her edit history shows that she is here only to promote certain musicians rather than contribute to the encyclopedia. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone might want to take a look at these - racist death threats, etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[349]

"If I were you, I'd be worrying about another Holocaust occuring, not engaging in edit wars on Wikipedia" "You might want to consider that next time you disrespect whites"

When asked to clarify responded with:

"You might want to avoid offending whites as you have done so at white pride and other anti-white pages on Wikipedia. We have a violent history."

Just indef already. Volunteer Marek  07:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Disruption, abuse, and NOTHERE with Avochelm

• Avochelm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• White pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After years of inactivity, Avochelm has coffee back recently. Their first acts we're to level articles with categories about Jewish heritage (though much of this looked like original research). Today, the user decided to pick up the "why is white pride different from black pride?" torch ([350], [351], [352], [353]). This includes blanking the article and trying to PROD it five times ([354], [355], [356], [357], [358]) as well as some abusive language and comments and veiled threats of violence ([359], [360], [361], [362]) EvergreenFir (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe he should switch to decaf. EEng 07:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

See section above. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 07:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not advocate violence, my genderqueer friend. Avochelm (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The above says it all. NOT HERE. Meters (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

From EvergreenFir's user page: "This user identifies as genderqueer." Avochelm (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor for their barely veiled threats of racist violence. Add in their anti-Semitism and gay bashing, and it is clear that this person is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AlexTheWhovian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

he continuously threatens me and undoes my work, I want him blocked so he cant undo my work!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 06pookchr (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

solved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Stolenunderground

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user added a bunch of unsourced material to Matt DeCanio, which I reverted[363]. Now he has left a combative and uncivil message on my talk page in which he claims to be Matt DeCanio[364]. I belive this message indicates an incapability to work with others and could be interpreted as a death threat. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Garden variety troll, needs blocking as nothere. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hard-blocked for username violation. There's certainly a case for WP:NPA and WP:GREATWRONGS too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USER: 2A00:23C5:2D4A:E00:99C7:3901:6ACB:923F

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user was vandalizing Jana Novotna's page yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.207.9.202 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know, if this is standard vandalism you can report it at WP:AIV instead after the user is properly warned. This looks like regular vandalism and was reverted already. Looks like the user was warned and stopped edited. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leeann Tweeden

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Leeann Tweeden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone please block or warn Redacter (talk · contribs)? An occasionally used account, it's repeatedly adding conspiracy theory and BLP violations to Leeann Tweeden, e.g. [365]. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

PMC, many thanks. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

removal of notable events by Rlbarton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rlbarton has removed many events from days of the year with no valid explanation. A trend I have noticed is removal of religious-related events. See diff, diff, diff, diff.

See most of notes on their talk page, none of which have been responded to. Especially this thread.

I do note that they have made positive contributions, such as this, but it bothers me that they have been removing so many entries without better explanation/messages on talk pages, or response on their own talk page.

I would appreciate any advice, and direction toward policy, etc., if I am overreacting to this editor's behavior. = paul2520 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this rises to the level of vandalism, but some of the edits look questionable. On the other hand I think a plausible argument could be made that Pope Francis' first trip to Kenya does not rate a mention on the OTD lists. In any event persistently refusing to explain or discuss potentially controversial edits is certainly discourteous, at the least. I think Rlbarton needs to respond to the concerns raised here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rlbarton. I am trying to give you the benefit of a doubt here, but you really need to offer some kind of explanation. Otherwise your edits might be subject to reversion and future similar editing could be seen as disruptive. Thank you in advance for your reply. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Paul2520: Even though I've encountered people like this a number of times, it never ceases to shock. How can someone edit this site thousands of times and never discuss anything?

Rlbarton has been here since September 2007, has just over 4,800 edits, and has edited user talk pages FIVE TIMES. The most recent instance? Emptying their own talk (without archiving) in April 2013. Up until that point, their talk page looked pretty much the same as it does now: section after section of editors, annoyed that this person removed their additions to days of the year articles, requesting explanations that never come. Their only other edit to their own talk came over eight years ago. Our articles on days of the years are far too sensitive to be patrolled by someone this inconsiderate. @Ad Orientem: if you're not too involved, could you consider an indef with a clear promise to unblock once Rlbarton promises to discuss things? CityOfSilver 20:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver - paul2520... With the obvious exception of trolls and NOTHERE situations I am not a fan of blocking w/o warning. That said, and given that Rlbarton has still not responded, I am strongly inclined to say that any edits they made that are questionable can just be reverted at this point. And I will post a warning on their talk page. If this continues it will be treated as disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem and CityOfSilver: That sounds entirely reasonable. I wouldn't want someone to unexpectedly log in to find themselves blocked. Yes, another warning sounds good. Hopefully they will respond. = paul2520 (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I have posted a strongly worded warning on their talk page. As far as I am concerned any edit they made up to the present time that you think is hinky you have a green light to revert it. If they start up with this again let me know or come back to ANI and be sure to reference this discussion and my talk page warning. This is going to stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thank you. And curious - what does YVR mean? I'm only finding the Vancouver International Airport. = paul2520 (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

YVR= Yours very respectfully. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I have no issues with this response. I'll keep an eye on this person. Thank you. CityOfSilver 16:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Preeze36 is creating a nightmare with improper page moves and creations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Preeze36 (talk · contribs)

Preeze36 has been engaged in trying to write an article about himself (see Preeze 36). In the process, he has also performed a slew of problematic page moves, including Preeze 36 → Mrecords ([366]), User talk:Preeze36 → User talk:Mrecords ([367]), User:Preeze36 → Wikipedia talk:Preeze36 ([368]) and then Wikipedia talk:Preeze36 → Wikipedia talk:Mrecords ([369]). This doen't even count the problems of COI editing and AFD interference. I recommend a brief (31 hour) block of this user to draw their attention to the unheeded warnings on their user talk page, and to prevent further page move vandalism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Either WP:VANDALISMONLY or WP:NOTHERE. Would recommend a longer block than 31 hours. Maybe indefinite. Slasher405 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I notice an earlier account, Wildjuss28, with significant overlap; I suspect this is a new user getting very confused, so I've left a message on their talk page suggesting as much. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No further activity from the user since this thread was started, so perhaps they finally got the message. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Indefed by Widr for self-promotion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting Discussion of my Infinite Ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi guys, I was banned with a button click like five years ago, and am hoping for an open discussion here lasting 36 hours. I considered myself a good editor, having originally created 10 or 111 articles, so it was galling to me that an administrator calls my account "illegitimate" with his pre-programmed button, and refused to speak with me like people do.

After that all these people (many from here at WP:AN/ANI) appear at my page with mad suspicion in their eyes and accusations and prosecutorial narratives all around. I have never actually been heard out in a discussion where I may answer my accusers with facts.

I'd adhere to an ultra-civility promise for the duration of the discussion with the only exception that I won't be any punching bag for people throwing insults.

I'll be back in a few hours to sign my user-name, if I'm able. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.194.14 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, first off we cannot answer an appeal from an IP when we don't know who the banned account is. Secondhandly, we almost certainly won't grant an "appeal" that consists mostly of accusing others. Third, an appeal should happen on the talk page of the banned account, not by block evading with an IP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I told you I will identify the account (assume I have a reason for doing this after the disussion starts). Secondhandedly, I accused no-one. Finally, I would do it that way if it were an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.194.14 (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No this isn't how it works. You need to go to the talk page of your banned account and post a request there. If you are blocked from editing your talk page, you need to file a UTRS request. As it stands, you are evading a block with this IP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oh God; is it time for another pointless Colton Cosmic appeal timesink already? Time flies... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Floquenbeam's comment above,which was accompanied by the edit comment "Requesting Discussion of my Infinite Ban: so soon?", I'd ask you to consider whether that's constructive or taunting, as well as whether he's made many more such comments. I urge the discussion continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.200.174 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you're misunderstanding what a ban or block means. It is not the user ID that's banned, it's the person operating that user ID. So if you're banned or blocked and are using IP's to get around it, you're violating the rules. You need to heed the advice here and either (1) log on to your regular account; or (2) abandon Wikipedia altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential vandalism-only account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This isn't a formal report, but administrators might want to keep an eye on Ian Fisher. Their only three edits so far are vandalism. Hopefully their next ones are constructive, but it's better to thread carefully. DarkKnight2149 15:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Because we all know what can happen when you don't thread carefully... Grandpallama (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This is why editing on mobile can be a bad idea. Spellcheck is a pain. For comedic purposes, I'm just going to leave that typo there DarkKnight2149 18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 Why can't you just revert, warn and if there's vandalism after the 4th warning report to AIV? Also he needs to be notified of this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That's what should be done, but I don't have time to watch this user. I was asking for someone else to do so. DarkKnight2149 —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I blocked them indef. Warning four times makes sense if the user had good contributions but started vandalism, or if there are doubts that the user understands what they are doing. Here, we do not have a single good contribution, and they clearly know what they are doing. Waiting until they vandalize more would be a waste of time for the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revival

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please check the talk page and help move Revival (Eminem album) to draft. The article is full of unconfirmed speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.192.145 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The place to request discussion of article content is on that article's talk page, and if you think it should be taken out of article space the place to start that discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. There's nothing here that requires administrator attention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Series of unnecessary and superfluous warnings from Mahveotm

• Mahveotm has given me three unnecessary warnings [370], [371], and [372], for edits here [373], in which I restored content that had been deleted without explanation. What could have been offered was an apology for the first warning; instead, the editor has double and tripled-down. It wasn't difficult to find a source for the content in question, but Mahveotm apparently preferred to harass me. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note that it is not up to other editors to find sources for your additions/changes/re-additions, it is up to every editor to add them with their additions/changes/re-additions. As stated at WP:BURDEN "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (my bold) - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, this went sideways fast, and in an interesting way. Again, it wasn't difficult to reword the sentence to the uncontested claim that the two personalities are brothers. I've tried that tack. The above note that I'm heading for 'an almost certain block for edit warring' is also interesting to me. To restate the obvious, I originally attempted to restore what appeared to be an uncontroversial claim that was removed without explanation. What's followed has been a cascade of warnings, including the most recent from a new IP. Sorry to ping you, but Drmies, your input would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the latest IP was a well-known LTA who is now blocked and their edits reverted per WP:DENY  :) so that's a slight reduction in sidewaysness. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 18:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and Bbb23. I confess I'm not sure what's going on there. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

While it is true that it is the responsibility of the editor who adds the information to also add the sources, in the specific case where the information concerns a person with an existing Wikipedia article, it only takes a few clicks to verify the information through the sources in that article (the brother had a starring role in at least two Tamil movies, both of which received lacklustre reviews which are used as references in the articles, and which mention him by name.) Yes, the OP should have done that, but issuing several warnings to them without taking a moment to check, when there is such an easy way to do that, is perhaps a little silly, I think. --bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiJonathanpeter

• Andrew McIntosh (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WikiJonathanpeter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ipadmasterman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Andrew McIntosh is a marginally notable engineer whose main claim to fame is that he's one of the vanishingly few British creationists. He attracted some criticism for appearing in junk conferences produced by the bogus Wessex Institute of Technology, which has a predatory open access publishing arm called WITH Press.

I removed some predatory journals from this article two days ago. Up pops WikiJonathanpeter, who has not edited since March, to revert. I reverted, and in comes Ipadmasterman, with his grand total of four previous edits, all back in July, to revert again. I smell socks. I also smell COI. I think those sources should be out (crap sources should not be used in BLPs) and I think this WP:SPA and his "friend" should not be editing the article. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• WP:SPI is thataway? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sir, you do not understand my intentions for changing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipadmasterman (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'd love to hear how this is explained. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 02:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for interaction ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Statement by: User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver

Hi, I would like to formally request an interaction ban of at least six months to mutually apply to me and Fram, preferably to start now, or maybe after ArbCom questions end if that is procedurally preferred.

I would also appreciate an uninvolved administrator to review my contributions objectively and check whether I am suitable for the role of NPR and if not remove me from the list.

I would also appreciate an uninvolved administrator to assess whether any topic bans or other bans are required against me.

I have already engaged in several detailed debates with Fram over the past 3 months, I see no reason to restate the varied content of those discussions here, they can be seen on my talk page. A short summary is that Fram believes I am incompetent and should be banned/topic banned/stripped of rights, and has followed me round making comments to this effect. I cannot in all seriousness treat Fram as either objective or helpful anymore and interaction has become strenuous and unpleasant, to the extent any further interaction would be counterproductive and a poor use of volunteer time on both my part and Fram’s.

I will not be making further comment here, any questions please ask on my talk page. I am not watching the page, please ping or make comment on my talk page if you have a question.

Thank you. Dysklyver 21:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by: User:Fram I had announed to Dysklyver that I would ask for some sanctions and/or mentoring for them at AN tomorrow. I'll present my case then, but if people feel the need to comment now, I would urge them to look at the ArbCom questions page and the discussions at Dysklyver's talk page. An editor who is e.g. unable to realise that a crank source is totally unsuitable for enwiki, and believes himself to be ready to be an ArbCom member and to have a good knowledge of our policies and guidelines at the same time, is someone who needs close monitoring. Fram (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• I will not be making further comment here, any questions please ask on my talk page. What? No, that's not how it works. @A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Hopefully this is a miscommunication. But you need to either strike that, and clarify you will respond to questions here, or I'm going to close this right now. This is not WP:AN/Lob grenade and run away.

No opinion (as of yet) on substance of request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually I was assuming that this would be a simple matter of Fram saying something awful and me getting hammered with all the above, but yes I am here to answer questions if needed. Dysklyver 21:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Per my comments made here, also support a suggestion to Fram that even if editors have done something wrong and they don't get it, that he does not continue to hound and belittle those editors in question. I mean, this ain't new. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 21:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, Fram is a bit brusk at times, but there are so many admins who have tried to help Dysklyver either on their talk or IRC that sometimes it is needed for someone to be blunt. Nothing here rises to the level of an IBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any need. I'm also really not keen on this happening during ArbCom election season; if A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver was to be elected, I don't see how an IBAN could really exist at all. I'm afraid that this all smacks of a get out of criticism card being played. If there was to be consensus for an IBAN, I'd hope, at the very least, for it to start after the ArbCom election closes. Nick (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Too easily abused. Let Admins/ArbCom handle each situation as they arise. It's usually obvious when trolling occurs. Buffs (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - And not because of Arbcom season. No one in the right mind would elect A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver with all their unaddressed competency issues. Sorry but this is just an editor who is not listening to legitimate criticism. That is not a reason for an interaction ban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - "The horror" Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A proud moment for Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not everyone managed to stay awake before getting to the end of User talk:EEng

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"In Memorandum: An Editor's Hand after Scrolling down EEng's Talk Page." User:Eman235/talk 5:40 am, 29 May 2017 (UTC−5)

Winning caption

According to [374] this is the 1,000,000th edit to ANI!!! You may all bow down to me. (And yes, I padded in a few edits to get there – I have to go to bed.) EEng 08:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I just went one better. Neil S. Walker (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he "paddied in a few edits to get there" - rather that he EEngineered it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete AN/I barely edited, viewed, or watched page. Clearly no need for it. :) ansh666 09:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete AN/I and Permaban EEng. It was fun while it lasted. --Tarage (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Indef EEng per WP:TE/WP:POINT. DMacks (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• I cant believe he wasted it on this post tbh. Should have posted something that required rev-deletion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• You could say that this does warrant revdel... Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete AN/I Fails WP:GNG and WP:MILL, page is in all likelihood just another place to air grievances. SamHolt6 (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Giant Boomerang - This is just another timesink thread started by EEng. At this point it's clear that EEng is not here to contribute to the overall improvement of the encyclopaedia. Support CBAN without SO. (jk... but only slightly) I'm leaning weak support on the delete AN/I too. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• WP:DENY. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Siteban EEng, while we're at it revoke TPA, range block everything EEng could possibly use, I want to see every CheckUser on point to stop him coming back. This gaming Wikipedia. Also, delete ANI as it is clearly the largest soap box in the factory. Blackmane (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Rangeblock 0.0.0.0/0; I checked and every single vandal was using that range up until they started finding some IPv6 space. DMacks (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, Yes it has its faults and I see the delete !vote points, but what page doesn't? Its much better to have a centralised discussion here rather than spread out across the project. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Look ArbCom don't have many cases nowadays so they should just handle everything ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Indef Topic Ban EEng from all other pages than AN/I. He deserves it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete WP:Great Dismal Swamp, as not based on WP:AGF. A million + 19 edits that could have gone to articles ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• +20 edits. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Why are y'all loitering around here for? Go build the encyclopedia... oh wait. MER-C 13:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Promote - it's about time this article appeared on the main page. While we're at it, let's delete the main page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Not going to add anything to this crapfest. And you can't make me. Softlavender (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• SanFranBan at this point this is all we as a community can request. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Can't we also request an ice cream party with a bounce house and pony rides? Or a unicorn that farts rainbows? DMacks (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    • That last item would be subject to tax. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Pig the pipes or indef Wikipetan We have enough editors. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Send EEng to the Phantom Zone DarkKnight2149 15:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - EEng inadvertently created a way for editors to quickly locate active admins. He deserves to be enshrined in the Museum of Alle-wiki-glory. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Too true. The only reason this is a "cesspit" is because editors do cesspitty things here. WP:BAREYOURBEHIND is where they need to go :) L3X1 (distænt write) 16:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep EEng here in this cell, now that he's padded it. In fact, according to [375] he's the top contributor here, which would normally be a call to move him to a new facility, but by the same source he's deleted more than he's contributed, so it's all good. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

And most of those deletes were correcting his own edits before acquiring the feature, "Show preview and changes". ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That's only analyzing the past 10,000 edits. That's only 2 months worth. Natureium (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Shhh!! A full in-depth analysis of the situation is discouraged around here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Bent railroad spike instead of boomerang. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Upside-down boomerang instead of bent railroad spike. Κσυπ Cyp   17:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete ANI - now can we get our friendly neighborhood stewaard to act on this obvious consensus? Tazerdadog (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to three ring circus. They're both the same thing, right? Lepricavark (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. Isn't one generally considered more dangerous than the other? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but which one? Lepricavark (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

How about a redirect to Great Dismal Swamp maroons instead? Recommended reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect ANI to EEng - He is God now. -- Sock puppet of Darkknight2149
• Close discussion: Wonder what this is all about? Is this even any incident? Is this a joke of a hang-around or something? This does not look much of a legitimate incident discussion. I do understand that ANI has hit a milestone of over a million edits, but suddenly, things should be cut short, so that admins can be focused on the job. Cannot have too much fun here. Slasher405 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Refer to Friend Computer, as fun is manditorily prohibited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Demand a recount. It seems much much more..Are you taking into account the 29 foot deep stratum of ancient peanut shells which proves conclusively that this noticeboard has seen continuous human drahma-based habitation for at least 5,000 years?. Irondome (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, Irondome...you said "stratum of ancient peanut shells" - sounds a bit anatomical. You can't be talking about EEng. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Roll for initiative. EEng is clearly an evil wizard that must be defeated. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect AN/I to the Teahouse, then redirect TH to Articles for creation, then redirect AFC to AN/I, then step back and watch while chaos ensues. –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Right! Stop that! It's silly. nagualdesign 20:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Permaban Clearly in order here. There is a time for thinking and a time for action and THIS IS NOT A TIME FOR THINKING!!! Buffs (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Thank you for all your kind words. You've brought a moment of joy into the life of a lonely and forgotten shut-in.
• Lest anyone get the wrong idea, it's true I'm the top contributor to ANI in the last X months, measured by number of edits. But I rush to point out that fully 40% of my edits are using OneClick to archive old threads. The actual top busybody here is Beyond My Ken. He's got almost as many edits as I do, and 0% of them are OneClick. EEng 02:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's even worse when you look at all my edits to this page overall, including my previous two accounts [376]. Of course, even 8921 edits (this one makes 8922 8923 8924 8925) is only 4% of my total of 218,686 edits (now 281,687 281,688 281,689 281,670) -- almost all of them made by hand, with no automation or semi-automation. Of course, I estimate that I make about 2-3 copyedits to each AN/I comment after I post it, so it's actually something like 1% to 1.4% of my total edits. Looked at in this way, I believe there are many editors whose edits to this page make up a much more sizable portion of their overall edits. Take the editor (naming no names, and not an admin, but a name that would be recognized by old-timers here) whose 2855 edits to AN/I made up 14% of their 24,450 overall edits.
  So... am I a busybody? Yeah, maybe, probably, but I also pull my weight building the encyclopedia, and I figure that gives me the right to stick my nose into whatever things the community is considering. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's a dirty, thankless job, but somebody has got to wave a mop at the bubbling green alien goo. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:213.162.72.238 - Excessive use of vulgar language, POV and all that nonsense

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP user repeatedly calls me a cockroach in Japanese.[377][378][379][380][381] Has no intention of engaging in a discussion over the issue. There are only insults and no substansive arguments.[382] VeryGoodBoy (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a 31 hour break for vandalism. While normally I would want a warning on the user's page, that is about as blatant as it gets. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two more cases of block evasion from Armanjarrettp

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs)

Same as before, as seen here.

User was editing off of an ip address, 112.200.107.143 (talk · contribs).

The user later created RoyalCon (talk · contribs), and I only noticed it when I was notified that my edits were reverted yet again.

The accounts all share a lack of reading comprehension, and don't listen to other users that disagree with their unsourced claims. Cards84664 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll add Atlantic Marseft (talk · contribs) for documentation. Thanks, I didn't even know about that one. Cards84664 (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Language issues, with some retribution editing thrown in

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Enzoimpazzuri (talk · contribs) is undoing a number of legitimate edits requesting an expert, re: a new article without English sources at Hanan Saeed Mohsen al-Fatlawi. For good measure and presumably to take a shot at the editor who placed the templates, we have this bit of vandalism [383]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A report was also filed at AIV, and the editor has been blocked 24 hours for edit warring. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of Presidents of Zimbabwe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of Presidents of Zimbabwe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is clear consensus at Talk:List_of_Presidents_of_Zimbabwe#Requested_move_19_November_2017 to move the article to President of Zimbabwe (over the redirect). As this article is highly topical and main-page linked it is appropriate not to wait for the 7 day limit in the move request. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup, should be snow closed. The link in the the main page should also be changed alongside. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm considering WP:SNOWCLOSE and taking the move. Does anyone object? ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. GoldenRing (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ECP gaming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moon House Sun appears to be making many rapid dummy edits to Rostami, Bushehr in order to gain extended confirmed status. Please see Special:Contributions/Moon_House_Sun. Sro23 (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attack account- Young Tom Fowdy Watchers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Young Tom Fowdy Watchers (talk · contribs)- is a user who signed up using my personal name in a satirical and stalking manner. Despite the fact that I am a non-notable individual, this user proceeded to start up an article about me, wrote with the guise of legitimacy, but with subtle negative spin. Promptly, I tagged the associated article as an attack and it got deleted. The user in question was blocked indefinitely. The blocking admin, Anachronist, reviewed the situation again and recognized that indeed, I am not a noteworthy subject to have an article [384].

However- despite this problems have continued, the user in question has continued to torment me on his talk page whilst being blocked [385], claiming his edits were legitimate and were in good faith despite obviously evidence to the contrary. The blocking admin had began to question whether the user was in bad faith, thus, attempts for me to test the water and approach this editor in good faith has resulted in antagonistic responses and explicit personal attacks, revealing the user's true agenda to use wikipedia only as a means of attacking me.

Despite this, the blocked user is continuing to troll me on his user talk page and propose "new usernames" which are personal attacks against me [386], including one against my religious beliefs. The involved admins have not took action against this. Can somebody please deal with this by protecting the associated talk page? It is not okay that someone is using Wikipedia as a vehicle to harass me, make invalid claims about me and explicitly reveal my personal details like this--TF92 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC).

Update, the user openly confirms her only purpose is to parody me [387] [388]- --TF92 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll allow the admins already working this to chip in, but a look at that makes it clear any good faith has been thrown out the window and run over by the train. Blatant attack account/trolling/harassing/stalking, strongly support revocation of talk page access. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@TF92:, unrelated to the current dispute, it seems like you deliberately obscured your own role as a UKIP candidate. I know it was a couple of years ago, but I think you need to come clean on that edit. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: The attack account has been blocked indefinitely. Happy Thanksgiving to you all. Slasher405 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of important statistics from reliable references

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I've removed Alex Shi's archive templates, please see my explanation below. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC).

The editor RatatoskJones is attempting to systematically remove a vast amount of valid reliable references about the situation in Sweden simply because he personally disagrees with the statistics. I would appreciate if you would tell him to stop doing so, to rather try to find compromise solutions by helping to improve the text flow and structure quality of the pages in question, which are areas that I admittedly have problems with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RatatoskJones David A (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I am fine with pruning references one-by-one, if valid reasons are added for each of them, but he opted to remove absolutely everything, with inaccurate sweeping generalisations. David A (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There's still the problem of WP:SYNTH by combining sources, even if each of them are correct when taken separately. You have asked about some of the sources and their use and basically told the same. See [389]. Sjö (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

David A has been POV-pushing for a while now, and was warned by EvergreenFir back in May: [390] [391].

This has since continued, with David first gathering links in his user space and trying to get others to insert them for him [392] [393] [394][395] [396] [397].

The links and pretty much all of David's editing is focused on negative info on muslims, immigrants and Sweden, usually a combination of all three [398]] [399] [400] [401] [402] [403] among many, many others.

Now he has taken to simply insert these sources in various articles, asking others to do his work cleaning up after him [404]. The end result was a mess of statistics without context, misleading text, op-eds and blogs used as sources. Per WP:BRD I removed most of them and asked for talk page discussion. Instead, he dragged me here. Considering the editor's paranoia and constant cries of censorship, as well as the issues mentioned by EvergreenFir in the link above, I do think a topic-ban is suitable here [405] [406]. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Why should I be banned? I have not broken any rules. All that I have done is note down reliable references about important issues, and then had them all sweepingly removed by RatatoskJones and Sjö, without any collaboration, compromise, or individual justifications. This is extremely unfair, and can not be acceptable behaviour by Wikipedia's standards.

Having problems with writing a coherent communication flow given my autistic limitations, can hardly be considered as a crime. I have found lots of reliable references, and yet absolutely all of them are being removed. David A (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See here for examples: [407] [408] [409] [410]

"Blogs used as sources" where? Could part of it have been removed? Yes, certainly, but I do not understand how anybody can possibly justify removing absolutely every single reference that I added to the Crime in Sweden page in particular. David A (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, as far as I remember, I went here before noticing the talk page discussion. I am exhausted from working 15 hours in a row with both managing my entertainment wiki and editing Wikipedia today, and was shocked about that all of the information that I had spent several months gathering was just sweepingly removed.

Am I afraid of Islamism? Yes, obviously, but so is 60% of Europe according to the statistical research that I have read. That can hardly be considered as a valid thought crime in itself, as long as I stick to the rules and only add relevant statistics from reliable sources. David A (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)}When you add references that say a crime went up 1000%, but don't give numbers -- was it 1 last year to 11 this year, or 100 to 1100? -- it's more sensational than useful. When you don't distinguish between occurence of a crime going up and reporting of a crime going up, again, it's more sensational than useful. When enough of your additions have problems like these, it's more effective to remove them and discuss on talk before re-adding. See WP:BRD for an explanation of the long-standing technique. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see nothing objectionable in RatatoskJones' edits or behaviour, but a whole lot of POV pushing through synthesis and additions of poor sources (and half-truth supported by said sources) in David A's contribution history. As noted above, David A has been previously warned about this, but seems to be doing it still. I would support a topic ban, suitably defined, given the sensitivity of the topic area and the apparent inability to understand the issues here. --bonadea contributions talk 18:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I have made a serious effort to relay the information word by word exactly as the sources state them, and almost all of the references are reliable major newspapers or official government reports. I have my mental limitations, so my editing is not perfect, but if there is a problem with references they should be discussed one by one and then removed. I should not be banned simply due to having read a lot of disturbing information, and turning very worried due to this. Valid references are valid references. That is all that should matter, not what the references say. Only facts matter, not opinions. David A (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x3 I indeed have my concerns about David A. I was first alerted to this editor on IRC when a link to User:David_A/Important_Fact_Links was posted, containing various sources that view Muslims in a rather negative light. I wondered when I or someone else was gonna have to give him the note that the grim reaper was soon upon him. Based on these continued problems, I think David A needs to stop touching these topics for a while -- take that subpage to MfD and I support an indefinite topic ban relating to Islamic topics, the current refugee crisis and political and societal issues in Sweden. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So I am going to be silenced simply because I cite valid reliable statistics that some people are uncomfortable with, regardless that they are usually correct? That is downright Orwellian, and definitely not how a reliable encyclopaedia should work. All of this is extremely depressing. All that I wanted is some help to add reliable information. David A (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you're going to be silenced because you refuse to listen when many different editors tell you what is wrong with the way you're editing. There's an easy way to avoid this, you know. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You have a right to feel righteous, but it is 99% of the time, in these circumstances, not going to be helpful for you. If you review and understand what we are saying, admit that you made some past mistakes, agree that you won't touch this area for some time, at least until you can understand what a reliable source is for Wikipedia's purposes, you might be able to save yourself, and not have a black spot of a topic ban be put upon you. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I suppose that I will do so, but I do not really understand this. Why was absolutely all of the information that I found considered unreliable? I wanted to collaborate to find the relevant parts.

I have almost no mental information filters thanks to my autism. I cannot find any sense of mental personal security due to preconceived ideas. All that I see are the statistics. Raw information, and little else.

If you mean that I should collaborate more, I am perfectly willing to do so, by discussing what should and should not be included, and asking for help given my mental disabilities.

Also, I have not been "POV-pushing for a while". As I have repeatedly stated, I work 7-12 hours a day taking care of my entertainment wiki. I haven't had the time to make almost any edits for many months. I finally overexerted myself this week in order to add various references, but beyond that, there has been extremely limited activity on my part. David A (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not been "POV-pushing for a while" -- Whatever you say, David. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I have barely had any time to make any edits for the past few years. I am busy being a bureaucrat for one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis. All that I have done is make some occasional talk page posts asking for help. David A (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Can somebody please explain to me why all of the dozens of sources from major newspapers and government reports were considered as unreliable? David A (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with my editing? What should I change? What is allowed to be added and what not among my references? I am extremely exhausted, confused, and disoriented at the moment. David A (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to adjust my behaviour according to Wikipedia's rules, but I do not understand this situation, and need to have it explained to me. My social orientation ability is very limited. David A (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you BTW. I am just on my phone, which makes for slightly more difficult editing. I'm sure other editors can fill the gaps, but I did discuss to you about adding the Daily Express as a good source for discussing immigration. I'll back to you with something more detailed when I get back home. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but I have no problem with that. You were clearly an impartial knowledgeable editor who told me concrete logic about the references that you removed. It is the wholesale removal of 50 or so references, without any solid explanations that I had a hard time accepting/understanding. It has taken me years to notice them all, and lots of work to edit them to Wikipedia format. David A (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I am about to fall over from sheer exhaustion, and have to go to bed soon. I suppose that I may wake up to some extremely bad news tomorrow. David A (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Still, I do want to note that I have always tried to stick to Wikipedia's rules. I simply did not understand why there was anything wrong with adding references from reliable sources, regardless of somebody's personal conclusions or viewpoints. I am not good at all with bureaucratic intricacies. David A (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If you start with a predetermined notion and then selectively trawl the internet for sources supporting that notion, you will certainly find a lot of supporting evidence. But that is not the way to write an encyclopaedia, that is the way to create propaganda and fall pray to confirmation bias. You need to follow the Baconian approach: First collect and view the data, then come to a conclusion. Or, on Wikipedia, where we don't do original research, check how experts view and interpret the data. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

But that is what I have done. I used to be a PC leftist until I started to gradually actually read up on the statistics. (Nowadays I am a centrist with extremely mixed viewpoints, as you can see in my userbox list.) I do not claim to always understand the information correctly, especially given my ADD, but as long as the information can be verified to be accurate, I do not understand why it should be removed. David A (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you have broken our rules by tendentious editing, David A. Your additions that were removed fell foul of our policy on due and undue weight. The references may have been reliable — some of them were, some were not — but all were arranged into a tendentious pattern. Not everything that's true, and that's even reliably sourced, belongs in every article. From David A's posts above, he seems to have difficulty taking these distinctions on board, and to grasp the difference between "true" and "belongs in an article". I therefore propose a topic ban of David A from Sweden in combination with any kind of crime, immigration, and/or muslims. I'm not sure my phrasing would cover the problem; please feel free to make a different suggestion, especially users who are more familiar with David's editing than I am: pinging @EvergreenFir, Sjö, and RatatoskJones:. Would a broader topic ban from Sweden and all related pages and topics be better? I find the editing quite concerning, so we need to do something IMO. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC).

Topic ban proposal - crime in Sweden

I have removed Alex Shih's close (of course leaving his rationale), please see my criticism of his close below. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC).

• Close by Alex Shi: Result = It's been almost one week and I think it's time to conclude this discussion for the interest of the editor involved and the community. The purpose of topic ban is to prevent further disruption, but David A has acknowledged in this edit what the issue was that led to this proposal, and has expressed willingness to address the concerns about their editing. So the question to ask is, is the topic ban necessary? The opposing views against this topic ban proposal cites a ban as being premature, but even in one of the opposes, the opposing editor provides a link to a discussion back in May that demonstrate this as being a long-standing problem. With everything taken into consideration, I am closing this discussion to implement topic ban from Sweden, in combination with any kind of crime, immigration, and/or Muslims for David A for a period of six months, with the option to appeal in three months. In addition, I am also implementing the proposal of tentative modification to allow David A to ask questions about these topics they will be temporarily banned from on user talk pages only for the time being with the hopes that they will receive mentorship. This modification will be supported with the clause that any resemblance of talk page bludgeoning would revert the ban back to all edits relating to these topics. This editing restriction has been logged here. Alex Shih (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I propose a topic ban of User:David A from either a) Sweden in combination with any kind of crime, immigration, and/or muslims or b) Sweden. If you agree, please indicate a), b), or other. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC).

Well, I would very much prefer if I was not topic banned. I am genuinely trying my best to only make reliable contributions, but I think in terms of fact or fiction. I have a hard time doing anything else, given the autism.

I haven't done almost any editing for a long time, and finally overexerted myself to take the time to insert my references this week, but I should probably have been more discriminate than insert all of them wholesale. Nevertheless, I would appreciate if some experienced editors could look through them, and insert the ones that are appropriate.

I am obviously willing to make required adjustments in my behaviour, but I need easy to understand directives to follow. I do have several mental disabilities after all. David A (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I could simply start talk page discussions about any references and ask for which ones are acceptable before adding them instead? It seems a shame to not allow me to find any reliable sources whatsoever. David A (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, it might be a good idea to edit elsewhere for a bit. It's not the end of the world, and might be fun to be in a milieu in which you're a little less invested. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that you have a point, but given all of the statistics that I have read about the situation in my country, I am extremely stressed out. David A (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You should be aware of the fact that interested parties do use the selective presentation of such statistics and of misleading extrapolations and interpretations as a tool for political gain. There is no reason to be stressed out about the situation in Sweden. See Dihydrogen monoxide hoax for a display of this technique in a very different setting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I tend to trust statistics far more than I trust opinions. There can still be problems of course, but it is nevertheless more reliable. David A (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• As noted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:David A/Important Fact Links, I think David A has collected an large number of links and is selecting facts, primary source material, out of them, which can easily be used to WP:SYNTH new material. It is very easy to use selected facts out-of-context, for purposes not supported by the source article, and this is WP:SYNTH. David indicates that he will wind back. He should be reminded that opinions and conclusions need to be explicitly stated by a reliable secondary source. If he can follow up, the ban idea threat could be relaxed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not fanatic about adding everything. I just want help from more skilled editors to figure out which sources that should be added and which that should not. I would prefer if I am able to at least suggest new sources in talk page discussions. David A (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It's very rare for me to disagree with Bishonen, but this time I must do so wholeheartedly. Looking at the recent activities at Sweden, David A added some statistics from perfectly reliable sources, even excellent sources (the official of the Swedish police, most of the major Swedish newspapers). Everything was deleted on sight by Ratatosk Jones who appears to not even have checked it properly (on the discussion page, they incorrectly claim the taxation statistics was sourced to a think tank when it was in fact sourced by a major newspaper and David A's text correctly indicated it was only a claim). Looking at the wider picture, David A's edits seem to conform perfectly well with WP:NPOV. Yes, his edits often give one side of the story, but usually on articles where the either side of the story is already told. Apart from edit warring, which of course it to be frowned upon, I cannot see what David A would have done to merit a topic ban from Sweden. In the recent exchanged with RatatoskJones and Sjö, I find David A to be the one more in line with WP policies. WP is not the place to promote Sweden (or anything else) so if the statistics about crimes that David A has edited are well-sourced (and they are), then what is the problem? Jeppiz (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the support. I have made an extreme effort to find what seemed to be reliable sources for the Crime in Sweden article and othervise, and accurately summarise them as best I could. However, I have to go to bed now, as I have not slept well for several days. David A (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The "major newspaper" source in this case was an op-ed (by a member of the think tank), which I made note of every time I removed it. I read through the whole text, both op-ed and think tank, and I stand by my claim that the sources were used to indicate Sweden had an 86% tax burden, which isn't even what the articles claim. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Then remove that alone. There is no valid reason to implicate every single reference in the flaws of that one alone. David A (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I looked into some of the sources collected on his userpage that another editor has brought to MfD. while there is a couple themes to the sources, there is nothing wrong with them. Pew Research for example is quite respectable. I'd like to see some serious justification for other editors excluding this material. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Here is the information that was removed, for reference: [411] [412] [413] [414]

Not everything is perfect, obviously, but I would prefer if part of it remained at least. David A (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral for now Support short term t-ban but the past behavior and the comments in this discussion give me great pause. I do not think Bishonen's proposal is out of order given the circumstances. This user clearly has a POV (a self-admitted one it seems) and that POV is causing disruption. David A seems to not grasp how their edits have been running afoul of SYNTH/POV. I am not at all convinced David A would stop this behavior on their own without some sanction. But I'm not sure it's t-ban time yet. I am leaning toward either a short-term t-ban (e.g., 1 month) so that David A can demonstrate their commitment to ceasing disruption or perhaps just a formal warning with a clear expectation that a lengthier t-ban would be implemented. On a side comment, David A's self-stated mental health issues is something to consider as an extenuating circumstance. However, plenty of us have mental illnesses or disabilities (whether autism, as David A mentioned above, or others) and have not caused disruption to the point that David A has. So, in sum, I'm still mulling it over... EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Autism is not a mental illness, it is a disability, but I have that, OCD, ADD, paranoia, anxiety, and formerly psychosis, but the last one was several years ago.

Anyway, yes I have a bias, like everybody else, but mine has almost been entirely caused by reading a lot of statistics. What I really need is some experienced neutral editor(s) to give me feedback regarding what is appropriate to add when I find what I think are reliable references. David A (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected my comments to reflect the distinction re: disability/illness. Thank you for pointing that out. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. David A (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Changing to support after seeing this and the user's continued placing blame on autism, OCD, etc. I have no confidence that the user understands the disruption occurring or accepts responsibility for it. An official sanction would stop the disruption and allow the user to demonstrate commitment to change. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's not open this can of worms here - The Bushranger One ping only 02:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mental illness, neurodevelopmental disorder, same difference. --Tarage (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC) There is a difference. One you are born with, whereas the other can pass. David A (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just reading this screams a witch hunt. However, there needs to be consensus before any controversial items are added. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is it that anytime the Wikipedia community gets together to calmly !vote on whether sanctions are warranted against an editor, someone pops up to call it a "witch hunt", or makes some kind of comment about "torches and pitchforks"? There's nothing in this discussion that remotely smells of hunting witches, it all appears to be a rational evaluation of behavior and what response is appropriate to that behavior. Let's put the "witch hunt" and "torches and pitchforks" rhetoric away, shall we, and bring it out for those very rare occasions when it might be appropriate. It's not helpful, and it's insulting to boot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I would be fine with going via talk page discussions first before adding items about this topic in the future. Take note that I have been thoroughly exhausted during my editing here the past 1-2 weeks, as I had to push myself to extremes to get the time for this on top of my regular massive workload. David A (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

...which suggests you see this topic as some kind of urgent crusade. EEng 03:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS may be relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Look, this week the results of an official government survey went out, and found that the rape statistics had tripled between 2012 and 2016. It would be strange if I did not get worried about that. David A (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Tripled? Really? And all Muslims and immigrants, was it? EEng 04:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have been the sex crime statistics overall, but in 2012 it was 0.8% and in 2016 it was 2.4%, as you can read here. Anyway, I have no idea about the exact demographics, as the Swedish government has refused to order another such official crime survey since 2005. The Moderate Party did state that they want one last month though. David A (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, regarding the urgency, I have wanted to make some additions to Wikipedia for 8 months or so, but been far too busy to handle it, but I eventually forced myself to do so anyway, since nobody else seemed willing to help me out. David A (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - per Bishonen. Facts and figuers aren't inherently neutral, it depends on how you use them, and collecting them using predetermined criteria leads to predetermined results, something that David A doesn't -- for whatever reason -- seem capable of comprehending. Given that it's unlikely that's going to change, this sanction is necessary to protect the encyclopedia from his biased editing; perhaps not deliberately biased, but biased nonetheless, because the system he set up to feed his editing is itself inherently biased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It would appear that David A is using some WP:RS material but in an inappropriate manner at this time. I would suggest that a period of mentoring would be a wise solution. Sweden does have issues in terms of it's present far left administrations' attitude to refugees and the governance of certain cities who's hostile attitudes to Jews who wish to publicly show support for Israel is disturbing. Malmo is a particular example. There are also obviously issues with the far right. It would be best in my opinion that David is helped in presenting his acceptable sources according to WP procedures. I think you are overreacting here a touch Bish frankly. Simon. Irondome (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's a fine idea, but I think you should read the entire discussion again, because my takeaway from it is that mentoring is very unlikely to help David A. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Personally I would greatly appreciate some ongoing mentoring. I have over 11 years of good past behaviour in Wikipedia, but I do not understand bureaucratic conventions at all. David A (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• The problem is not that you don't understand our "bureaucratic conventions" (whatever that means, exactly), it's that you don't seem to understand our editing policies, such as WP:NPOV. As stated a number of times in this discussion, if you go looking for statistics to support a predetermines point of view, you're inevitably going to find them, but putting those statistics into articles without giving the fuller picture an unbiased look at the full range of stats would provide is non-neutral editing, and that is not what we're looking for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

But I did not have a predetermined point of view regarding this. I have simply read a lot of statistics and regular news reports that point in a certain direction, and since I have limited mental filters and good pattern recognition, my analysis of this situation has shifted accordingly. I do have a problem with sifting information, and gauging where exactly to draw the line though, but I do think that including some of the information is warranted at least. Some of the pages were very onesided in the positive direction before I made some additions, and I did not remove any of that previous information. David A (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Bishonen. Preferably alternative b), but failing that, a). Statistics can be used (and are often being used) to lie and distort the truth, correlation does not imply causation, and confirmation bias is a powerful thing. I do not believe David A fully understands these things, and the discussion makes it clear that there is an element of wanting to right great wrongs here. Wikipedia is not the place for that. --bonadea contributions talk 06:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the David A is consciously using statistics to lie or distort the truth, just that it is easy to be taken in by misleading statistics from unscrupulous (or misguided) publications. --bonadea contributions talk 06:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

But they are mainly statistics from major newspapers that have traditionally been in favour of massive immigration, and government instititions from a government with the same viewpoint. Why would these be considered as deliberately misleading the public in the other direction? David A (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That is neither what I said not what I meant. My concern is your inability to understand how statistics can be used. Part of that is trusting in unreliable sources but another, equally serious part is making your own unsubstantiated interpretations and syntheses of figures from more reliable sources. My second post was just a clarification that I do not believe you are editing maliciously. --bonadea contributions talk 08:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you, and you are correct, I am not. I am just extremely worried and afraid from reading a lot of information. David A (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support, alternative a, per Bishonen and Beyond My Ken. I linked to a lot of diffs earlier, and there are plenty more that could be added. It has been a steady stream of POV-pushing and righting great wrongs for the better part of a year now.

Usually, when one of David's edits is removed, it's called censorship and the paranoia comes out: "You have no right to censor valid information from reliable references, according to Wikipedia policy." [415] "Also, I am admittedly a paranoid sort from being used to that lots of people are either not basing their conclusions or opinions on empirical facts, or outright want to censor them from public view and destroy the lives of anybody who mention statistics and the nature of reality." [416] "the party itself represents an important rational new perspective in Swedish politics. This seems like a thinly veiled attempt to prevent the larger public from getting informed about its existence." [417] "What is the issue here is that you view offhanded casual remarks without any evidence as absolute Truth™, simply because it aligns with your political agenda, not that I do so." [418] "Please avoid censoring any valid information that you ideologically disagree with." [419]

I think this demonstrates a mindset that is not capable of editing neutrally, as does this: "I (...) spend much of the rest of my free time reading horrifying news about existential threats to human civilisation, and the disintegration of all social institutions in our country (...) However, I feel like I have a moral responsibility to help inform the public about the horrible situation in this country (...) If people remain blissfully unaware, the situation is only going to get considerably worse, and it is likely already far too late to do anything about. As such, I get extremely frustrated and depressed when there seem to be collaborative efforts to sweep all reliable statistics under the carpet. Not just in Wikipedia, but in society as a whole." [420] Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have clinical paranoia, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, this is true, but I still think that this focuses far too much on my worries and concerns as automatic thought crimes, rather than on the quality of my added references. I have made additions to 5 or so pages in the last week, and this is still immediately deemed as tendentious editing, which should merit that I am unable to even find and suggest any references in the future, no matter how reliable. Virtually all of them are statistics from major newspapers or official government institutions, and yet absolutely none of them should somehow be allowed to be featured within Wikipedia. This seems like an extrene overreaction. Take Snooganssnoogans for example. He has edited several hundred different pages in the past 8 months by adding references in favour of mass immigration, and attacking anybody who questions it. Yet, when I spend 1-2 weeks editing 5 pages by adding references that question it, all references should immediately be removed, and I should be banned because of my anxiety. This seems very unfair. David A (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, I have been, and am, perfectly willing to collaborate, find compromises, and remove inappropriate references. It is wholesale removal of everything based on a few possible bad examples that I disagree with, and find unfair. David A (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support a). There's a pattern not only of tendentious editing, but also of WP:SYNTH and flat out adding text that isn't supported by the sources. Sjö (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have genuinely done my best to accurately summarise them, but if you disagree, and my reading comorehension is lacking, you should mention what should be corrected in the talk pages, and I am perfectly willing to agree, not attempt to shoot the messenger. David A (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would much prefer if I could get an experienced mentor who can evaluate what is or isn't acceptable to add, and still be able to contribute to talk discussions, after which what is agreed upon can be added to the pages. I would feel completely crippled if I was unable to even find and suggest valid references. David A (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, or alternatively topic ban for Sjö and Ratatosk Jones from the same topic as well. While I agree with Beyond My Ken above in that the term 'witch hunt' does not contribute to a constructive discussion, I would say this is among the more appalling cases I've seen during more than eight years on Wikipedia. Yes, there are problems with some of David A's edits, as he himself has recognised. At the same time, just yesterday we see Sjö reverting David A no less than five times in nine minutes [421], [422], [423], [424], [425], while Ratatosk Jones reverted David A a full eight times in less than 30 minutes [426], [427], [428], [429], [430], [431], [432], [433]. After this collective reversal on sight of everything David A tries to add, we now see the two of them here to support a topic ban. I must say I find these two users' behavior just as indicative of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as that of David A, and I see no reason to hand out a topic ban in just one direction in what is clearly a complex situation. Jeppiz (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. As I mentioned from the beginning, I did not want to ban RatatoskJones or Sjö. I just wanted some administrator to tell them to stop reverting everything, and instead collaborate. David A (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my edits. Everyone else here seems to understand that too, so I recommend you go back and read the other responses. David did bold edits, I reverted. Next step is discussion, which I initiated on the talk page. That's procedure, WP:BRD. David simply reverted back to his edits and then ran here. You're not really doing him any favors here. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I agree that I was too hasty in going here. I was thoroughly exhausted at the time, so my judgement was in a bad condition. I thought that you and Sjö had decided to constantly revert everything I added, regardless if it was warranted or not, and did not notice the talk page discussion until afterwards. David A (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Ratatosk Jones, your comments and actions show a continued failure to understand. And it's not "just me"; several users have expressed similar concerns in this discussion and you would do well to read through it. If you really think that it's normal to revert the same user eight times in twenty minutes, then you are very much part of the problem. While David A has at least acknowledged his errors and expressed a willingness to learn, you stubbornly refuse to accept that you have done anything wrong. My very best wishes expresses concerns that your (and Sjö's) actions go against WP:NPOV, and I share that concern. What David A added was well sourced and relevant to the articles. Some of it was badly written and some of it was not very relevant, but your attitude of reverting everything he publishes on sight, over and over again, then trying to get him topic banned, all the while insisting that you've done nothing wrong is very troubling. If this is not WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I don't know what is. Jeppiz (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that I have severe problems with sifting information, to find what is or isn't relevant, would you be willing to take on some sort of mentor role for me, in terms of deciding what is appropriate to include in the profiles? David A (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Btw: It might be worth noting that Sjö and maybe RatatoskJones seems to be a part of the group of editors from the Swedish Wikipedia who tried to get the page for the Citizens' Coalition party deleted here, after first removing it there: [434] David A (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This is pointless. Three of the reverts were roughly the same collection of trivia links dumped in three different articles. The rest were the misused taxation source that I've mentioned earlier. I also didn't revert all of David's links and text; the ones I found no fault in I left in. Over and over again? I did not re-revert anything after restoration by David or others with the exception of one occurrence of that taxation thing. Rather I took it to the talk page. I had no intention of starting an edit war, or dragging anyone to WP:ANI. That was David. I laid out the case for a topic ban here, and it's hardly limited to this week's actions. So you're penultimate sentence is pretty much all wrong. But hey, David is now accusing me of being part of some nefarious Swedish Wikipedia group that's here to delete articles, so... improvement? Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

And, Jeppiz, what David A added wasn't well sourced. There was sourcing to non-RS sources, and instances where the text didn't support what the sources said. I gave some examples at talk:Sweden. I think that it's surprising that you restored all of David A's edits including the part about taxes that I explicitly called "not supported". If you think blanket removal is bad, so is blanket restoring. Sjö (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Editing history of the page looks to me as typical dispute if country X was "good" or "bad" country. "Proving" that it was good by removing something that RS tell [435] (by Sjo and some others) goes against WP:NPOV and WP:RS. That type editing is actually a clear cut "nationalistic" pattern. Including such content (as David A does) can also be problematic, but it must be fixed by editing, not by outright removal of the sourced content and banning the contributor, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the support. I really appreciate it. I am obviously perfectly fine with selectively removing references. It is just that removing over 30 of them at once and then getting me banned seems very unfair. David A (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The opinion by Softlavender and some others is not unreasonable because you already had a discussion about sources in May [436], and it did not help. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I did not remember that I received a reprimand. I probably thought that it was just an ordinary discussion point at the time, and am constantly extremely busy with a great amount of different tasks in my entertainment wiki, so I have a major problem remembering everything. The current situation on the other hand feels like I am on trial, so I take it very seriously. David A (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, edit like that (on a page about a country) do qualify as obvious POV-pushing and degrading the content... My very best wishes (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree that I shouldn't have done that edit. I worked for 15 hours in a row that day, and did not have any common sense to speak of at the time. I should have asked for help via the talk page instead, as usual. I am very embarrassed about this entire situation. David A (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Legacypac, and My very best wishes. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 04:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help. David A (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@David A: Please stop responding to every "oppose" !vote with "thanks for the support" comments. It's really quite annoying and is on the verge of violating WP:BLUDGEON. This discussion isn't personal, the "supports" aren't "against" you, and the "opposes" aren't necessarily "for" you, each editor has simply looked at the situation and the evidence and decided what they believe the best course of action is. It would be best if you limit your participation to responding to questions or comments which require your input. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I will try to shut up then. David A (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban option a) Sweden in combination with any kind of crime, immigration, and/or Muslims. This editor has openly acknowledged their many personal impediments to NPOV editing in this topic area, and their cumulative contributions to this discussion verify their complete inability to edit neutrally about Muslims and crime in Sweden. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support (a). Given the editor's statement at the top of this proposal, I do not think they have the competence to edit effectively and without POV in this area. With the topic ban, the editor can demonstrate they have something to contribute to Wikipedia besides tendentious/POV editing in a contentious topic area. If after a year or so the editor has contributed elsewhere effectively and without incident, and if they have not engaged in tendentious editing elsewhere, and if they finally understand what they were doing wrong in this topic, then they may appeal the ban provisionally, with it to be reinstated if the problematic patterns recur. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral but I have some thoughts - I looked through a number, though not all, of the diffs supplied. I had expected some serious POV pushing when I started reading this. I then found that... well... David A doesn't really know how to interpret what they're looking at and doesn't know how to sort the chaff from the wheat. Hence the appearance of POV pushing. I'll be referencing this lone diff to make my point. So what's the issue in the two edits? well... a) it's not pleasant to read (let's sanitize it eh?), b) it's poorly implemented (facts and figures just scattered about with no rhyme or rhythm - one second it's about guns and grenades and then the next it's about rapes) and c) it's presented with little explanation or justification. E.g. The number of sex crimes in Swedish festivals went up by 1000% in 2016 compared to the previous year. So? its written to sound very scary, except, if it's gone from 1 sex crime to 10 in a whole year (and that will account for a 1000% increase) then it's not particularly interesting let alone severe. What are the raw numbers here? of course, the source doesn't bother to say. Why? well... if it's anything akin to the news story in the U.S. a few months back concerning the 45% increase in young teenaged girls suicides (versus 30% for boys) in recent years, it's because the percentages sound a lot scarier than 2 in 100,000 to 3 in 100,000 (note that it's gone from like 9 to 12 in 100,000 for teenaged boys). Quite a difference when you look at the real thing. I would never recommend using a news source for any kind of statistics. I'd always go to the source material first. The reason for this is that you're quite likely being misled, or left insufficiently informed, by the source you're reading. Statistics can quite easily be manipulated to fit a narrative and that's what David A is buying into by reading and then utilizing these sources without understanding them. This is a problem, one that is sufficient to justify a TBAN, but, one that may be - potentially - rectified without it. David A is clearly engaged in problem editing, but not maliciously or with ill-intent. The edit-warring from the other side is also a concern and I haven't been able to justify a number of the reverts at all - like the ones at Taxation in Sweden and some of the edits at Sweden itself. The edit-warring only exacerbates the problem. So, finally, what to do? Well, David A has actually presented a couple solutions that would satisfactorily resolve the issue; a) use the article talk (additionally restrict yourself to 0RR), and b) get mentoring (this does not mean getting a baby-sitter). If this crops up again, it will need a TBAN to rectify. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

As I stated above, he lacks the competence to edit in this area, as he himself admitted at the top of this proposal. It doesn't really matter whether problematical and policy-violating editing is done with malicious intent or not, it just needs to stop. He needs to get his head out of this area and do something else. There is nobody who wants to mentor/babysit him, and the potential damage to the encyclopedia is too great to allow him to continue editing on these topics, even with a 0RR, because, again, no one can babysit him and watch every one of his edits on every single article he may edit. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

All of this is extremely depressing, if I am not allowed to even find the most important and reliable references. All that I need is some collaboration from other editors in the talk pages to help me sift what is or isn't relevant. Can I at least make edit requests in the talk pages? David A (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, I only have time to edit very few articles, so a mentor wouldn't have very much work to do. David A (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support option (a). Per Cullen328; Softlavender. Given the editor's frank disclosures about their current state of mental well-being, they might be better off leaving the articles alone and going for a nice walk, or enjoying a hot chocolate and a good novel: Wikipedia is not therapy, and in instances like this it might be the exact opposite of therapy. If they must find an outlet for their fears about immigrants Islamists, Nazis, Communists, and career criminals and crime, there's always Facebook. Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not afraid of immigrants. I am afraid of Islamists, Nazis, Communists, and career criminals. I am also afraid of various existential threats to humanity (global warming, artificial intelligence, etcetera). David A (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Duly amended. Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Formal warning should be given to David A against any further WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I first encountered this issue when I saw RatatoskJones remove the "Taxes" section[437] with the summary "rm unnecessary section" which struck me as odd so I reverted. Then I saw them remove a whole swath[438] of material which at first I thought might be more POV (or whatever) editing on their part until I saw that the content was a staccato hodgepodge of anti-immigrant tidbits that had recently been added by David A. It is possible to violate WP:NPOV (particularly in this case WP:DUE) while still following WP:RS. The material in question is not entirely inappropriate but openly editing with an agenda is. David A should be given an opportunity to rein this in and concentrate on contributing smoothly flowing, balanced paragraphs rather than jumbles of talking points. At the least I think David A should be allowed to continue to use the talk pages to make suggestions because he (I'll assume "he") seems to be contributing factual material. A litany of admitted mental health/disability issues is not an adequate excuse for bad behavior, and must be correctable with reasonable accommodation, which doesn't include allowing tendentious editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to do my best to adjust my behaviour accordingly. It should be noted that I have only edited around 5 articles to insert the list of references that I have assembled over the past 2 years, during the last 1-2 weeks. It isn't like I have made lots of edits over a long period of time in this manner. I would also very much like to still be able to use the talk pages to suggest relevant references. David A (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed "final" from my !vote because it made it sound like there was a longstanding problem, which I'm not aware of. On the other hand I see you are not a new editor, so if warning is the outcome of this it should be an only warning and final in that sense. At this point in your Wiki career you should know how things work. Also part of the perception of the problem may be how you are approaching editing - inserting lists of points rather than constructing paragraphs - and I think that may be affecting what content you decide to include. As I said on the talk page, you need to start with a paragraph that summarizes in words what the major secondary sources have to say about the topic, then look at what additional details might be relevant. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have traditionally not edited frequently, and mostly stuck to editing entertainment articles, as they are easier to understand. However, the main problem is my extremely split attention for the past 3.5 years while building my entertainment wiki. I have simply had a hard time to get the necessary time and attention span to construct proper text segments with a good flow into articles, when constantly simultaneously distracted by at least 10 other tasks that need to be handled concurrently, which, along with my severe lack of time, is the reason why I have almost exclusively been asking for help rather than performed any complicated edits. Hence, I messed up when I finally got stressed out enough to make an attempt. I didn't use to have nearly this much of a problem back when I was able to get the time to relax, calm down, and properly think things through. David A (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't allow people with uncontrolled epileptic seizures to fly commercial airliners, and I don't believe that Wikipedia should allow a person who has "almost no mental information filters thanks to my autism [and] cannot find any sense of mental personal security due to preconceived ideas", who suffers from "clinical paranoia, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder", who is "afraid of Islamists, Nazis, Communists, and career criminals [as well as] various existential threats to humanity (global warming, artificial intelligence, etcetera)" and "spend[s] much of the rest of [their] free time reading horrifying news about existential threats to human civilisation, and the disintegration of all social institutions in our country" anywhere near editing any area of the encyclopedia which deals with controversial issues, because they are quite obviously not equipped to handle them, and cannot possibly muster the objectivity to deal with those issues in an NPOV manner.

The current topic ban being considered is most probably not broad enough, given David A's self-reported conditions, but it will do for a start, and may encourage him to return to editing entertainment articles -- although I frankly have my doubts as to whether they have the capability to edit Wikipedia in any subject area. About that, we shall see if the sanction is passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to gauge my crime in all of this, all that I have actually done is add mostly reliable references to very few pages the past 1-2 weeks, in a rather incompetent manner. I would appreciate if I would at least be able to find and suggest relevant references in the talk pages, so others can add them. I have over 11 years of mostly good behaviour before that, and feel like I am on trial and condemned for being extremely overworked and having some mental disabilities that I am making an extreme effort to handle. I mean, I have managed to build a well-functioning entertainment wiki with 644000 individual visitors a month almost from scratch. David A (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Managing a private Wiki is not at all equivalent to gathering data, separating the wheat from the chaff, describing the resulting information, and inserting it into an encyclopedia article in a neutral manner. They simply are not equivalent activities and do not utilize the same capabilities. It's somewhat like thinking that being a success at making real estate deals qualifies you to be President of the United States. 'Tain't the same thing at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I agree about that. I also strongly dislike Trump. I just feel like I am being condemned and put on trial for my disabilities, despite that I have made an extreme effort to generally manage them. David A (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no current proposal that you stop editing Wikipedia. The proposal is to prevent you editing on the subject where you have zero healthy perspective and massive amounts of prejudice, obsession, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Since WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are prohibited on Wikipedia, I do not believe you should edit talk pages either on this subject, as it would simply create talkpage clutter of random unconnected links. If you feel compelled to pursue your obsession, I suggest writing a blog, or start a wiki of your own about it. Softlavender (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That is not fair at all. Prejudice is hatred out of lack of knowledge, whereas I have simply grown very worried due to reading lots of reliable information regarding certain subjects. You are not going to find any Wikipedian without a bias, whether based on emotions, or in my case information. The difference is just that I am unable to lie about it. Most of the references that I added were reliable, and not original research, and I only edited a few pages in an incompetent manner, which lead to this massive cross-examination and condemnation that is overexerting me even further than previously. WP:SYNTH is likely an issue though, as I have a hard time gauging exactly where to draw the line regarding what is or isn't relevant. David A (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you personally are not able to see that you are unable to edit on this topic in a competent manner is in fact part of the competence issues at hand and why the editing restriction has been proposed. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have been very open about my problems, as I almost lack the ability to lie due to limited mental filters. However, instead of understanding that I am genuinely trying my best to find reliable references and have simply been too overworked to be able to structure them in a competent manner, all of my disabilities are systematically used as weapons against me. How is that not prejudiced, when I have over 11 years of mostly good past behaviour, and have managed quite well despite my various problems by making an effort to manage them. David A (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no current proposal that you stop editing Wikipedia. My feeling though is that if you keep responding this way to every single opinion on this thread, the proposal could grow broader in scope. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose that I have to shut up then. I just feel the need to try to defend myself from false accusations. However, I should note that you have also responded to several other people's posts in this thread. David A (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Irondome and Jeppiz, while there may be some conduct issues at play that can be addressed, it is also clear that it's not one sided. It's also clear that David A. is providing reliable sources and it's not some hole in the wall conspiracy sources. This does indeed seem like a push to silence one viewpoint. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a conduct issue to me, it seems to be a very clear competence issue, even as revealed by the editor's own remarks on this thread. It's not the case that a "viewpoint" is being suppressed, it's that severe prejudice, extreme POV obsession, and massive amounts of misleading WP:OR/WP:SYNTH are being removed from the article(s), per WP policy/guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, most of the information has been reliable, and I am deeply offended from repeatedly being called prejudiced simply due to reading lots of reliable information and being afraid of different types of extremist ideologues. That is a perfectly rational concern. David A (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you personally are not able to see that you are unable to edit on this topic in a competent manner is in fact part of the competence issues at hand and why the editing restriction has been proposed. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem wasn't only OR and SYNTH, but also adding unreliable sources and text that wasn't supported by the sources. David A's content wasn't well sourced, like Jeppiz said, and not all the sources were reliable. There were also reliable sources, but some of the additions sourced to them didn't say what the sources said. I think this also points to a competence issue, I can understand if someone misinterprets a machine translation, but not when a Swedish-speaking editor clearly misinterprets a source in Swedish. Sjö (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - oh God, this is overdue. It's been going on for awhile. To be clear, I don't think there's malicious intent here, but there is a complete lack of self awareness, lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and "right great wrongs" attitude which causes enough trouble as is. Volunteer Marek  05:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If I lacked self-awareness about my problems, I would not have been nearly as open about them as I am. Still, I am willing to make a serious effort to change my behaviour for the better. I should make an effort to shut up about my concerns and stay professional when visiting Wikipedia for example. David A (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek did not say that you had a lack of self-awareness about your problems/diagnoses. You do however have a lack of self-awareness about your inability to competently edit on this subject matter. It is not a case or situation where "chang[ing] my behaviour for the better" or "shut[ting] up about my concerns and stay[ing] professional" is going to remedy that. Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I do know that I have editing problems, but I am also good at finding valid references that increase the reliability of articles. I do not see the harm in at least allowing me to ask for help in inserting them via the talk pages. Also, I take this situation extremely seriously, so I am willing to do what is required of me to change my behaviour for the better. David A (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not a case of "changing your behavior for the better". It is a case of lack of competence in this area, and the time-sink of dealing with masses of non-relevant WP:PRIMARY-source links and information, even on article talk. Your own idiosyncratic obsessions are your own business, but when they intrude onto Wikipedia, even on talk pages, that is severely disruptive and problematical. Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that there is no hope then. I will be condemned and not given a chance to help out no matter what I do. This is all extremely dispiriting and depressing. David A (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not mandatory and Wikipedia is not therapy. You are free to indulge your idiosyncratic obsession on sites of your own devising, or indeed anywhere else, but you should not indulge it on Wikipedia. And once again, for the third time, there is no current proposal that you stop editing Wikipedia, although that may become the case the more you try to frame yourself as a victim and prolong the time-sink of this thread. Softlavender (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. You are correct, and I do agree that I lack sufficient editing competence in my recent stressed out and overworked state of mind. I do think that I could regain it again if circumstances change and I get more free time to relax and calm down though, and I would greatly appreciate if I could keep the ability to ask others for help. David A (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

My constant extreme overexertion and severely distracted state of mind has made me behave completely without common sense throughout all of this, and I now greatly regret performing the edits. I can only hope that I do not get a lifelong punishment because of it. David A (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support alternative a). When someone tells us their motivation here is spread the word about what a horrible place Sweden is turning into, based on crime statistics and Muslim demographics, while at the same time telling us he's suffering from paranoia, stress and other problems, then that's not a person whose NPOV-judging abilities are appropriate for this subject material. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If even Zebedee, who I have a previous good impression of, thinks that I should be topic banned, I probably should be, so I give up. I only hope that I will get the chance to appeal for lifting it at some point, if my mental health situation/level of constant stress gets better in the future. David A (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope that will become the case, and I wish you the best for your health problems - and I do think it will benefit you to keep away from this subject for a time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support a Some of the diffs show David A adding text that might be reasonable in isolation, but the dedication shown to pushing the line favored by David A means a topic ban is required. A dispassionate interest in Sweden or crime would be fine, but having someone add every negative point found in primary sources about a particular topic is not good for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support a) Although I made it clear above that I supported a topic ban, I just want to make it clear that I specifically support a)'s terms. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be settled then. After all of the explanations, and given that I have had the time to rest and regain some of my common sense, I have now understood that I have engaged in inappropriate and incompetent tendentious editing, and do not know where exactly to draw the line to avoid WP:SYNTH. My considerable worries concerning the issue due to reading a lot of news, lack of competence in writing summaries, and occasional bad understanding of the cited references, has also made me engage in undue weight POV. That said, several of the sources were probably fine in themselves, but the way that I presented them was not. However, as mentioned earlier, I would appreciate if I can still ask more skilled editors for help if I find something that seems very important. David A (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure that would be fine, if you raise the point quietly on some friendly editor's talk page, and follow their lead about what to do. You're to be commended for taking on board the criticisms offered, blunt though it has been. Is there some totally different, non-controversial topic area you're interested in that could take your mind off all this? EEng 06:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have also recently discovered the {{edit request}} option for talk pages, which seems useful.

I have traditionally mostly occasionally edited comics and anime, and other entertainment articles, and have also managed to build one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis, so I am constantly very busy taking care of it. David A (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• EEng, I agree that David A is to be commended for taking on board the criticisms, but I'm worried he may be getting the wrong idea about what a topic ban is from your comment ("I'm sure that would be fine, if you raise the point quietly"). If he is topic banned, which is looking quite possible, the topic ban will extend to all Wikipedia pages, including user talkpages, and will prevent him from raising the subject he's topic banned from anywhere on wiki, however quietly. That would violate the ban. And so would posting about the subject on article talkpages, David, including making {{edit request}}s. If you do get topic banned, please read WP:TBAN to see what it entails. If you escape a ban, of course, you'll be able to discuss anything on any pages. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC).

Yeah, I realized all that later, sorry. Perhaps someone would like to volunteer to mentor him on this, with the TBAN modified to allow him to discuss the topic on the talk page(s) of editors who specifically authorize him to after he contacts them via email. EEng 00:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the problem with removing my freedom of speech regarding this subject entirely in Wikipedia, and only allowing me to communicate via email, is that I would have to reveal my IP address to all of those that I contact, which can be used to track me down, and as such is potentially very dangerous for my personal safety. I mean, the main problem is my incompetent editing, not that all of the references that I have found are unreliable or irrelevant. David A (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The suggestion is only that you be allowed to contact an editor via email to ask him/her to publicly invite you to interact, on the editor's talk page, about this topic. Sending an email via the Email this user feature does not reveal your IP address. EEng 04:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the information. David A (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Because you are concerned about your privacy you might also want to know that Email this user sends the e-mail address you have set in your Preferences, so they can reply directly. Sjö (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems like it could be a problem. David A (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Then do what many editors do, and open a free e-mail account -- typically at gmail --to use only for Wikpedia discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. This user wants well sourced information to be included. Most of this information is arguably "due". The only problem: this info should be properly written to comply with WP:NPOV. I do not see how this warrants a topic ban from article talk pages. My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• My very best wishes, you make a fair point, though we should perhaps also consider the way David has been comporting himself on talkpages; some of his posts are pretty bludgeoning. Just one example: in this section from May 2017 on Talk:Crime in Sweden, David offers 20 [sic] sources, and when User:Liftarn says many of them are unreliable, David asks him to "go through them one by one and give reasons for why they are unreliable", and Liftarn declines to do so, whereupon David gets shirty.[439] That's a high maintenance discussion partner. Throughout the section, I'm struck by David's failure to learn from any criticism or opposing viewpoint; e.g., when Liftarn states that the Liberal Party report David has offered as a source has been widely criticised, providing three good sources for such criticism, David responds "Virtually every single important report referenced anywhere in Wikipedia has received at least some criticism."[440] IOW, David expects a lot of work from others, and dismisses that work when he doesn't like its conclusion: Liftarn went to some trouble to exemplify his point, and it was just like water off a duck's back. A more recent example of aggressive WP:IDHT is this section from early November. I don't altogether understand why reasonable attempts to engage with David on talkpages have had so little success (note especially this comment by User:NiklasBr, which David hops right over/misunderstands), while here on ANI he does take criticism on board. Possibly the difference is the threat of a topic ban? Anyway, it's a contrast, and because of the high maintenance problem, I'm not personally convinced it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to allow him to edit talkpages. The time and energy of constructive users is our most precious resource, and is not to be squandered. (OMG there Bishonen goes again with the precious resource, she's like a broken record. But it's true!) Anyway, MVBW, for clarity re what the community wants, please consider posting an alternative proposal, for a topic ban from articles only. The people who support my topic ban above must be assumed to support a topic ban as defined in policy, i.e. from all pages. If you give them an alternative, some of them may change their minds. Bishonen | talk 15:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC).

Well, I do not care. If others think he was also disruptive on talk pages, that's fine. I think this thread was here for a long time already. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I admit that I have been stressed out and overly suspicious of others in the past. For what it is worth, I am willing to do my utmost to be as collaborative as I can in the future. I simply wish to be able to give suggestions for references and have them evaluated. David A (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been extremely mentally taxing for me, so I understand the gravity of the situation. David A (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support according to option a). I'm not qualified to say if it's medical or ideological, but there is not just in one article, but several. // Liftarn (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Reopening. Alex, your close is a supervote according to your own opinion — not an assessment of consensus. You say "So the question to ask is, is the topic ban necessary?". No, that's not the question — when you close a discussion of a proposal here, the question to ask is "What is the consensus of the discussion"? I make it 8 opposes to the topic ban I proposed, which was a ban from the topic of either a) Sweden in combination with any kind of crime, immigration, and/or muslims or b), Sweden. There were 14 supports, overwhelmingly of my alternative a). One editor, EEng has suggested it might be all right for David A to ask questions about these topics on user talk pages; and another, My very best wishes has intimated David needn't be banned from article talkpages. Assessing consensus is not a simple count of "votes", but there is no kind of consensus, no matter how you slice it, for the exceptions these two people suggested; and yet you have implemented EEng's suggestion, and told David he can discuss on user talk pages as long as he doesn't bludgeon, and "with the hopes that they will receive mentorship". The 14 supports were of course for what we normally call a topic ban, please see the topic ban policy: unless otherwise specified, the ban includes all Wikipedia pages. I've removed your archive templates (leaving your comments). Please note also that there have been explanations to David, immediately after EEng's suggestion, of how to use Wikipedia e-mail to ask individual users questions. E-mail isn't covered by a topic ban (unless indeed an e-mail ban should be specified), and I don't see why using that form of communication would be a hardship for him. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC).
  • P.S. I see you have now also closed the discussion as a whole. I'll remove that in a minute.) Bishonen | talk 20:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC).

I am fine with if I am unable to open discussions on other member's talk pages during a 6 month block. It was a very fair decision given that I have made some serious mistakes. Could we please close this again now? I am going on vacation tomorrow, and this is all extremely taxing for me. David A (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, David A, I hope you won't have to wait long, but for my part I'm pretty much the last person on Wikipedia that should close this. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC).

Okay. No problem. David A (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Bishonen: (edit conflict) (four times) I am fine with the reopening and I accept your criticism. I'll recuse myself from further discussion and leave it to another closer, but I do want to note that I did not see any benefit of extending this discussion any further. Allow me to paraphrase, but are you suggesting that there is a consensus to enact proposal option (a), as I have tried to implement from the rough consensus, (the time frame of the ban has not been discussed; EvergreenFir suggested short term, while Softlavender suggested possible appeal in one year; I do not see any consensus for indefinite from the tone of the discussion), but since there is no consensus to implement any kind of modifications, the closure is therefore invalid (in terms of technicality)? I am fine with that. My question is, if it's the modifications that were key to your concern, would crossing that section out be a viable path forward? Just my thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, Alex Shih. First, I'm sorry I missed pinging you — it was kind of a stressful thing to do, reverting your close (and then your second close) and getting everything technically right — anyway, I'm glad you saw it quickly without a ping. As the proposer, I feel kind of antsy about voicing an opinion about ban length at all, which hasn't even been discussed — I seem to be becoming overly threaded through this — but perhaps I should, since you ask, and since crossing out the "modifications" bit would be the quickest way. (David is anxious to have it over with.) I'd certainly be fine with your six-month topic ban with the option to appeal in three months — I agree the tone of the discussion doesn't suggest infinite — so your close minus the modifications seems good to me. (Though, you know, I don't agree that the modifications were just a technicality, if that's what you meant.) Bishonen | talk 21:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: (edit conflict) Thanks for the quick response, and I am sorry about the stress. Maybe "technicality" was not the best word; from what I understand in your comments, it is the inclusion of the modification that turns the closure into a supervote, that's what I was trying to say. If I may to explain my action, my rationale when I was assessing the discussion was that the flow of the discussion has shifted as David was beginning to acknowledge their mistake, and I thought it would be reasonable to make an exception despite of being out of process. Normally (as I had considered initially), I would refrain from closing but choose to open another proposal subsection on the modification. Anyway, the point is that I agree with your comments, and I'll gladly cross the section out entirely and re-close the discussion properly later, if no one else has done so by then. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

In the event of a topic ban, I think that the 6-month period was a reasonable decision because there was no unanimous consensus and because this would be the first sanction for the user. If something happens in the future, the ban can be easily extended. I also agree that user talk page provision does not follow from consensus and should not be included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A question if I may. If somebody starts a discussion in my own talk page, am I allowed to reply, or should I respond with "My apologies, but I am not allowed to talk about that"? David A (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The latter. EEng 21:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. That is good to know in advance. David A (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Support topic ban, option (a). The user’s editing in this area is not a net positive, appears agenda-driven, and burdens the community. I accept that the user’s intentions are good, but it is time for him to step out of the topic area for the time being, in my opinion. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.