Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

Noticeboard archives


WP:CIR, editor frequently calling constructive edits a "vandalism"[edit]

Xinjao (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia per WP:CIR. They may appeal the block in 6 months.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

After he made this disruptive edit[1] where he called edit a "vandalism", by using a self-reverted edit[2] as justification, I warned him that constructive edits are not vandalism.[3] Indeed, that's something he already knows, but he is still frequently calling such edits a "vandalism".[4][5] He has been calling constructive edits a "vandalism" for a long time.[6][7][8][9][10][11]

WP:COMPETENCE issues are not limited to this. In his edit,[12] he used this source[13] for replacing "India" with "Indus River", but source says "India", not "Indus River". Lorstaking (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Dear Administrator,
    I have explained my accusation on the talk page: Talk:Cradle_of_civilization#Intentionally_rewriting_sections_to_be_more_vague_is_Vandalism._(Indus_Valley_changed_to_Indo-Gangetic_Plain)
    NINE Sources have been provided where the majority refer to the Indus River/Indus Valley. These 2 users have repeatedly changed the Indus valley/Indus river references to several other references that are NOT listed in the sources. They are engaging in Original Research and edit warning, ignoring talk page discussions and dragging other users to Administrator notice boards without engaging in any discussions.
    Please note that neither Lorstaking nor user User:EdwardElric2016 have contributed to the talk page. These two users have simply engaged in undoing constructive edits and plastering my talk page with warnings.
    The entire premise of the article is based on the following section: Cradle_of_civilization#Single_or_multiple_cradles
    The 9 sources list/discuss the Indus River or Indus Valley.
    Lorstaking removed this reference in favour of "Indo-Gangetic plan" back in October: [14] He also removed the Indus Valley reference in favour of the general term "India".
    I stand by my comment that this is vandalism as he is removing references to sourced information and adding his personal POV to articles while ignoring any talk page discussions. This user has not engaged with me in any constructive manner about the topic. He posted a warning and then created an admin incident. This is against everything wikipedia stands for. --Xinjao (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, [15] was not my edit. This would be another example of Lorstaking edit warring with others. Refer to [16] Xinjao (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As a final point to address the actual dispute, which User:Lorstaking still refuses to address, as he seems more interested in combing my contributions from 2015. Please refer to the a simple Google search [17] The common name which scholarly articles and the vast majoity of searches utilise is "Indus Valley". The sources in the article use this name unless referring to the entire subcontinent. Lorstaking is engaging in POV by removing the Indus Valley references in favour of "Indo-Gangetic Plain" and the more non-specific and broad "India" references. Xinjao (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Sources call "India", not "Indus Valley" or "Indus River". Do you really believe that because you don't like the term "India", you are allowed to misrepresent sources? Makes no sense. This is a single edit, not edit warring and it remained there to this day until you started edit warring and misrepresenting sources today. There is clear WP:IDHT from you.
"I stand by my comment that this is vandalism", I expect there will be a speedy block for this continued incompetence, because now there should be no doubt regarding your disruption. Lorstaking (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Please take 2 mins to actually read the sources. They talk about the Indus Valley or the Indus River. This has nothing to do with what "I like". You are misrepresenting the sources. Not a single source refers to "Indo-Gangetic Plain" which is what you submitted in October. Furthermore, you have refused to engage with me on the Talk page and all you seem capable of is threatening users with warnings and bans. Xinjao (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
You are now trolling me, but don't worry no one will find any sense in your comments. Already mentioned you that in your edit you used this source[18] which says "India" not "Indus". Another source of yours[19] makes no mention of "Cradle of civilization". [20] redirects to college admissions, while [21] redirects to scam websites. Using such references won't impress me at all but only prove how deceptive you are. I expect not only a block but also a topic ban on your account for your continued failure to WP:HEAR that how badly you are misrepresenting sources, since this all comes after you had been already warned of WP:AC/DS about WP:ARBPAK.[22] Lorstaking (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
It seems that your only intention is to ban people who disagree with you. Admin, please note that he repeatedly talk about warnings, bans, blocks, topic bans rather than engaging with people on the talk pages. These are NOT my sources. These sources are already in use in the article so please don't accuse me of this nonsense. The source [23] refers to INDUS VALLEY and has been used on the page for years. Here is another source already in use which refers to Indus Valley [24]. The fact of the matter is that you favoring "Indo-Gangetic Plain" reference which is not listed in any of the existing sources.
This entire discussion should take place in the talk page of the article, but since your primary focus is to get people banned, we find ourselves doing it here. Incompetence. Xinjao (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Problems are with your excessive lack of competence. The source that I had added supports the information by saying "major river valleys of the Indo-Gangetic Plain of South Asia were among the great cradles of civilization,"[25] unlike your misrepresentation of sources. According to your POV, we should be adding sources[26][27] that mention "Indus Valley" but not "Cradle of civilization"(name of the article) in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and you also want us to remove what is not liked by you even if it is accurately supported by the source. This is just another incident of your small and recent editing history that you are always editing with an agenda,[28][29][30] you can't edit neutrally. ~~
Stick to the topic if you can. This has nothing to do with my contributions in other topics. For a person who refused to engage on the article talk page and where your first course of action is to get people banned, I question your competence too. What you have described above is Original Research, which you started working on in October of last year. "Indus Valley" returns nearly 4 million results whereas "Indo-Gangetic Plain" returns 200 000 off topic results that have nothing to do with the Civilization topic. You are engaging in ORIGINAL RESEARCH by adding these references to the article. Thanks for admitting this openly Xinjao (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This noticeboard is meant for commenting on editor, not for gaining support for your problematic article version. Is it really possible to find someone "engaging in ORIGINAL RESEARCH" even after adding "references to the article"? Thanks for the laughs but that is not what I had asked for. Lorstaking (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
#1. If you had taken time to contribute to the talkpage of the article, we wouldn't be discussing the article here. You did not show any intent to discuss the subject. Your first move was to post a warning and your second move was to raise a case with an Admin. Your partner User:EdwardElric2016 also refused to discuss in the talk page. He repeatedly reverted my edits while asking me to use the talk page.
2. You clearly don't understand the concept of Original Research. You are expanding a definition to fit your POV, against the norm and against popular interpretation. A simple Google search reveals this. The phrase "Indo-Gangetic plain" is almost never used in this context. Indus Valley is the widely used common phrase when discussing the emergence of civilisation in the Indian subcontinent. So yes, your edits from October are examples of Original Research Xinjao (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Having visited the article recently and seeing the revert warring there, there does some to be an issue with the new user:EdwardElric2016 who does not seem to be familiar with policy, including reliable sources as even stated on his talk page. I would suggest this ANI is a bit premature and that the content of this ANI be posted on the article talk page. If the majority sources refer to it as Indus Valley (as seems to be the case), we could have a case of WP:UNDUE. Otherwise I can propose an alternative to put in the article. But one thing I should point to is the Indus Valley and Indo-Gangetic plain are two different things. Indo-Gangatic plain refers to the Indus and the Ganges; whereas the sources seems to be talking about just one of them.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree here. There is no issue with EdwardElric2016, he is a competent editor who is editing for a couple of years. Capitals00 (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Capitals00, He has so far refused to engage on the talk page but he continues to revert edits. On a different note, I also disagree with you deleting my talk page entry. I was discussing the content and the sources, but I have rewritten the entry with a different tone if that helps. I expect EdwardElric to engage this time. --Xinjao (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Xinjao, the report concerns your toxic conversations, misrepresentation of sources and false accusation of vandalism that you have made above as well, this has nothing to do with your petty content dispute. Evidence shows that you have been carrying this disruptive editing for years and here you have shown zero remorse for your actions because you believe them to be right. For such reasons, a block is really warranted, or a final warning that any similar misconduct will lead to a topic ban or long block. I am fine with either or both, but before this thread is willfully derailed anymore by you regarding the actual issues with your conduct, I would ping NeilN to have a look. Capitals00 (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Capitals00 I find your comments really unfair as you have decided to focus on that one word that might have been misapplied. I went by the book and initiated a discussion on the talk page which went completely unanswered. This users first action was to post a warning and second action was to start this admin case where he falsely accusses me of socking. I have a total of TWO edits on that article. They simply do not care for the talk page or discussing the content. I maintain that Lorstaking is engaging in Original research and ignoring talk page discussions. What is your suggestion that I do next? Xinjao (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Xinjao: As you probably know, reverting vandalism is exempt from WP:3RR. If you really think the edits are vandalism, then you believe that you are free to revert them without consequence or having to give a reason. If "vandalism" is your way of describing content that you don't like, then you are are attacking other editors, calling them vandals. The first option shows you don't know what vandalism is, which means your judgment regarding content matters can't be trusted in this area. The second option means you are simply attacking other editors, always unacceptable, but more so in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. I strongly suggest you carefully read our vandalism policy, especially WP:NOTVAND, as more incorrect accusations will result in a topic ban or block. --NeilN talk to me 13:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I do apologise for the confusion NeilN. Vandalism might not have been the best word, but how do I address this users practices? They are not responding to talk page discussions, while mockingly reverting edits and referring to talk pages. Upon further reading, I maintain that Lorstaking is engaging in original research, while changing sourced content. What would you suggest I do next? Xinjao (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Xinjao: If you have clear-cut evidence the editor habitually adds original research in the India/Pakistan area despite being warned, then look into filing an WP:AE request. The cases presented need to obvious, however - not a matter of interpretation. --NeilN talk to me 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Xinjao believes there is original research because his opinion is more prevailing than the one added by Lorstaking, though Xinjao has so far failed to provide single source that would support his opinion. There is no original research if reliable source has been provided to support the information, this has been already said by Lorstaking above still Xinjao is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Falsely accusing others of "mockingly reverting" him shows battleground mentality. Recent problems are not limited to this single article either[31], there seems to be a long term pattern of nationalistic POV editing from Xinjao. Misrepresentation of sources has been explained above, however it seems that are worse issues with using sources. On talk page, Xinjao admits that two of his sources "no longer exists", or he "do not have access", still he edit warred to add these sources. That is a blatant falsification of sources. Xinjao at least deserves a final warning logged to WP:DSLOG regarding these serious concerns, that any more of this will lead to blocks or topic bans. Capitals00 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thats a lot of baseless accusations coming from you Capitals. You have called me petty earlier too. I dont understand your hostility. I repeat once again for your benefit. Those were not my sources. Those sources were already being used in the article for years and I referred back to them. Please don't accuse me of edit warring. I have a total of 2 edits on that page and I actually engaged in the talk page unlike the person you are strongly defending. Out of 9 sources, 6 check out. 2 are inaccessible. But none of those 9 sources correlate with Lorstakings edits. You also misquoted me on the "mockingly reverted" comment. Edward reverted my edit whilst telling me to use the Talk page. I consider this "mocking" because he is clearly refusing to respond in the talk page himself.Xinjao (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It is well evidenced already. Though your inability to understand simple English language is clear. He called your content dispute "petty", not to you. You have frequently claimed that "9 sources"[32] [33] [34] supported your content and now you claim "6". None of your source support your sentence. If you are still not hearing then I would better expect you to be topic banned as result of this thread. There is no denial that you edit with an ethnic agenda and you don't care about editing with care. That's why you added the sources you didn't even read per your own admission. It is also irrelevant that what you "consider", as such statement only shows your inability to consider your mistakes. Lorstaking (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Dear Admins. Please note the personal attacks and please note that I have made a total of 2 edits on that page but I have lost count of the number of baseless accusations from these two. Lorstaking has spent more time trying to get me banned than he has engaged on the talk page. His dismissal of 6 valid sources (that are not even mine) in order to engage in his own original research supported by a single source is beyond astonishing. I will raise this separately. Xinjao (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is not a single personal attack. These false accusations of misconduct will get you blocked. You don't even know what is an "original research" despite having told 100s of time that if statement has been supported by reliable source then there is no original research. This is not only a case of WP:CIR but also WP:IDHT, you are deliberately attempting to mislead. "that are not even mine"? That means you hate to take responsibility for your edits now, yet you are tirelessly professing them. With this continued presentation of your incompetence, you are typically asking for an indef block until you grasp the policies correctly. Lorstaking (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That's more than enough with your misguided hostility, insults and off topic posts. You raised this admin incident because you believe I am being disruptive with my 2 Edits and a talk page post, which you initially refused to engage. I will let the admins decide on the next course of action. Please keep the content discussion to the talk page. I see more people have countered your views. Address them please. Xinjao (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no hostility but concerns about you, if you can really contribute in a collaborative environment because to this day you have used Wikipedia for your WP:BATTLEs often.[35][36][37] Who would want to engage in a "talk page post", where you are misrepresenting sources, posting rants and calling every edit a vandalism with which you disagree? That's why bringing you to ANI was a better solution. Even after this all, nothing has been changed. You could've done yourself a favor if you could avoid the article but you are only making it worse for yourself by continuing your disruption. Lorstaking (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I am collaborating. I raised the talk page discussion, but thank you for explicitly admitting that you did not want to engage in those. According to you, the article was misrepresenting sources long before I entered, which is clear when you dismissed these sources back in October and added Uncommon Names instead. I had no involvement in the article when you started this process. Others are disagreeing with your edits and providing new sources, so perhaps take a look at your own conduct. --Xinjao (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, no one will engage in talk page that is toxic instead raise issues with the conduct of the user. You are using it as scapegoat, but if you were really so fond of talk page discussion you would've opened a talk page section first before making your disruptive edits on main article or after getting reverted per WP:BRD. I am yet to see anyone "disagreeing". 3 users are in agreement so far, there is nothing wrong with his conduct, though there are too many problems with your conduct. Capitals00 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Having taken onboard Neil and Capitals feedback, I have created a new entry on the Talk page of the article, detailing the mismatch in the sources and the text being used in the article: Indo-Gangetic_Plain_vs_Indus_River_Valley Hope this helps. Xinjao (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the above claim that EdwardElric2016 is necessarily a competent user. He's added original research on various articles and received numerous warnings on his talk page. So I'd disagree that it's necessarily user:Xinjao that's the problem. Despite being reverted, he has carefully explained his edits and is correct to state that the majority of sources agree on calling it Indus Valley; wheras User:EdwardElric2016 ignores this. There's more but I'll add it to the article talk page when I have time.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Are you talking about "his talk page" or "various articles" or this incident? You need to provide diffs for your claims, because they seem baseless. I am yet to see any misrepresentation of sources and mislabeling of constructive edits as vandalism or any other problems from EdwardElric2016 that are found in Xinjao, and now we have you to lend blind support to apparent disruption. You are under a final warning[38] and you should not take risks that will lead to reinstatement of topic ban on your account. I would remind here that you have already tested boundaries when you and Xinjao were trying to WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS on Hindustan,[39] about 3 months ago. Let us hope that you won't repeat mistake in the future. Capitals00 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I clearly provided a link to his talk page. Likewise, Xinjaoe has clearly made his case regarding the sources, but again you not listening, which is clearly disruptive.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It is within policy not to agree with Xinjao's misrepresentation of sources. He can provide if he has any that would be suitable for the subject. Lorstaking (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
NadirAli, let me be crystal clear that EdwardElric2016 is more competent than you and Xinjao put together. You didn't provided any "link" to his talk page. A frivolous warning from Xinjao should be ignored. I don't have to agree with falsification of sources from Xinjao, but you are telling me to agree. You can ignore the correct argument and lend support to his disruption but you will only find yourself sanctioned, given you were sitebanned and topic banned and now you are under a final warning. Capitals00 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Me and Nadir are active on the Talk page and trying to address your perceived concerns about sources, which is more than I can say for Edward who still hasn't made an appearance after guiding me there. Please explain in the talk page how I am falsifying sources? More sources have been added by another user fyi. Xinjao (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I have already explained that on talk page, unlike you I am not fond of repeating over and over. Editors are not obliged to reply to discussion and at least not when you are only engaging in disruption and making a WP:POINT. I have already looked into discussion and everything is still same. Capitals00 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
By your own admission, Xinjao on the talk page, you are "combining sources". There is a word for this on Wikipedia: SYNTH. It is not allowed. - Nick Thorne talk 15:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
That's clearly not what I wrote Nick, I should have been more clear with that sentence but please don't take my discussion out of context. Its really not fair. I was referring to Lorstakings practice. He is happy using the original sources as the foundation of the article, but then he mixes the sources to change one specific naming convention (Indus valley to Indo-Gangetic plain). I have not added anything thats not clearly mentioned in the original sources. Please review my 2 edits and let me know where I have mixed sources if that's what you have gathered from my post. --Xinjao (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
"Clearly not what I wrote"?? You exactly wrote "Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Combining sources", asking other editor to engage in WP:SYNTH, since this is all you have been doing until now. Lorstaking's sources meet WP:V, while yours fail it. You have been engaging in this nationalistic POV editing in more than one article,[40] it would be an overkill to take your words without doing research since every time you are caught WP:GAMING. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Why on earth would I ask someone to break the rules? And how on earth is the usage of "Indus valley" Nationalistic POV? Its very interesting to me that you consider this nationalistic. Does that mean all the sources I posted are nationalistic? Indus valley is not a nation. Its just a phrase that clearly upsets you. You have been pushing to get me banned from your very first post. Xinjao (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
That's why people are concerned. That why you are asking others to break rules. It is your ethnic agenda to use "Indian subcontinent" by removing "India",[41] despite not supported by your source, because you believe that it takes away the credit for Pakistan, that didn't even existed in those days. That's how its nationalistic. Clearly "Indus Valley" is not a nation, yet you treat it as a nation as per your edits[42] because it gives you a feeling that you are out to lend credit to Pakistan, which again didn't even existed before 1947. Lorstaking (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
For the two articles, I removed the "India" reference in favour of "Indus Valley" because that's what nearly every single source quotes. Your misrepresentation of my edits just shows how biased you are on this topic. Usage of Indus valley does not show ethnic of nationalist bias. You seem to have a big problem quoting sources as they appear. --Xinjao (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yet none of the sources support your ethnic agenda driven edits. In place of being this deceptive, just cite the sources but given your incompetence you really can't do that. You are only misrepresenting sources to favor your ethnic POV pushing. Lorstaking (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This post Copied from my talk page - Nick Thorne talk 01:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I saw your comment on the admin page and I really feel that you took my comment out of context. Please note that I have a total of two edits on the page. But to the topic of source mixing, I am trying to understand your views. Where did I mix sources?
On the contrary, the person I am arguing with is happy with the original sources for the foundation of the article, but replacing one specific naming convention? Isnt this the obvious example of source mixing? Really like to hear your thoughts. --Xinjao (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's the problem with Xinjao. He can't understand English language and/or write it properly. Let alone drawing conclusions from these sources, it is just out of his scope at this moment, but unfortunately he is tirelessly pursuing it. He believes that he is putting himself in a better light by throwing empty accusations against others when he is undoubtedly the one with clear competence issues. Lorstaking (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The question wasn't addressed to you and once again I would like Admins to note the petty insults and this users desperate attempts at halting discussion into his edits. Xinjao (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
OK Xinjao, firstly, no one gets to decide who can or cannot comment here, anyone is free to make whatever comments they wish and in response to whatever else is stated or asked by whomsoever to whomsoever. Secondly, I'm afraid I have to agree with Lorstaking in this instance. These comments do indeed seem to indicate that you lack the ability to properly understand English, both that written by others and apparently and more worryingly that which you write yourself. Competence is required and so far your contributions do seem to indicate that this might be your Achilles heel. I feel that this is probably the root of the problem. - Nick Thorne talk 11:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
My question was directed to you, on your Talk Page Nick. I don't recall giving you permission to post it here under my signature, hence I was clearly not looking for Lorstakings opinion on this. I understand very clearly what he is writing, but disagreeing with his opinion does not mean that I don't "understand English". This is clearly a personal attack Xinjao (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Xinjao, you still don't even understand what is WP:SYNTH,[43] and you are still treating these policies like they are a joke. This comes after you asked me to engage in WP:SYNTH earlier.[44] Since the "question" belonged to ANI and you spuriously attempted to started the discussion on user's talk page,[45] I am allowed to comment on your question. I am allowed to comment on your question even on Nick Thorne's talk page. Provide diffs if you want admins to act about anything. As of now, you are only signifying your incompetence. Lorstaking (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
My entire argument is that you are combining sources, which is against the rules. I did not "ask you to engage" in this practice Lorstaking. It's ridiculous that I have to explain this to you. You can comment all you want but since my question was off topic, I posted it on his Talk Page for a reason. I don't appreciate him using my signature in this fashion. Xinjao (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
You need to provide diffs. Empty accusations are only increasing your chances for getting a block or topic ban. I am not even understanding what you are trying to claim here. But given your incompetence and the fact that you don't understand English, it is just too normal. Why you are being hostile to everyone who is not in favor of your trivial wishes? Lorstaking (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Xinjao, you obviously do not understand the conditions of use under which we work here. We give a permanent, irrevocable licence to everything we write on Wikipedia, including what we write on talk pages. We do not own that material. I copied your post from my talk page, where it did not belong since it was in response to something on this page, and I did it in a completely open way. I stated what I was doing, where it came from and who wrote it.

No possible deception there. Just with your comments on this page you have dug yourself into a hole. Stop digging. - Nick Thorne talk 08:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This topic is getting out of hand. Lorstaking made no attempt to resolve any issues on my talk page or the article talk pages and self-admittedly he saw no need to contribute to the article talk pages. I am always open to suggestions and discussion, but these users are now resorting to repeatedly bashing my English as an argument, so I do not see any merit in continuing this. Xinjao (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I attempted to resolve issues on your "talk page"[46] but you won't stop calling every edit a vandalism that you don't like and signify your incompetence. You are still problematic regardless of this thread. People are correct if they are pointing out problems with your poor understanding of English per WP:CIR. Lorstaking (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Lorstaking, I can no longer assume good faith in your edits or your arguments. I have checked your history and it seems you are pushing your nationalist POV on multiple articles. You derail my discussions with baseless accusations for simply using the term "Indus Valley" but your edits are clearly driven by nationalism:

  • Twice Removed sourced "Cradle of Civilisation" reference from Pakistan article [47][48]
  • Changed another sourced reference by removing "Western Pakistan" in favour of "the subcontinent" [49]
  • Removed Indus valley references from History of Pakistan article.[50]
  • Removed another reference to Pakistan from the Indus Valley article. [51]
  • Changed length of Indus river to give India an extra 2% and removed 2% from Pakistan [52]

It's very clear to me that you carry a nationalist agenda Xinjao (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet you are still showing willingness to continue revealing how incompetent how are and care only about your ethnic POV agenda driven edits.
  • On Pakistan, a long term disruptive sock sharing your POV was misrepresenting sources despite none of the sources called Pakistan country a cradle of civilization. [53][54] I was reverting the nonsense.
  • I made this edit because source didn't supported the earlier and my edit is meaningful, given there are many Neolithic sites are older than Mehrgarh.
  • Where did I removed "Indus valley references from History of Pakistan article" in this edit?? I was reverting problematic edits made by an ethnic POV pusher like you[55] who has been topic banned for such edits.
  • Where did I removed "Indus valley reference to Pakistan" on this diff?? I had in fact added a source.
  • I changed "an extra 2% and removed 2%" per this edit[56]? But evidence shows that I was reverting a new edit[57] that modified the made up stats added by you. Your addition of these false stats removed[58] was removed per discussion on talk.
You can't even speak English. I am astonished that you thought of analyzing my edits after siding with disruptive topic banned socks and POV pushers and you don't even know what is adding or removing references. For you, this nothing but a joke. Lorstaking (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
More emotionally driven petty personal attacks because I dared to analyse your edits. Your edits tell me everything I need to know about your nationalist agenda Lorstaking. You are blatantly targeting Pakistani articles because in your mind you are trying to counterbalance, as clearly expressed in one of your earlier ramblings about "lending credit to Pakistan" This shows your mentality that you treat Wikipedia like a battleground. And now you are proposing an Indef block because I am highlighting your inane edits. Xinjao (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Fabricating information is not enough. You have to provide actual evidence for backing up your empty accusations and you are still failing to show even one diff. Given your inability to understand English, you should not be editing English Wikipedia at all, let alone engaging in WP:BATTLE over your desparate ethnic and nationalist POV pushing. Lorstaking (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Indef block proposal[edit]

I was right to think that someone with so many WP:CIR issues can't actually reform overnight. Xinjao has shown his inability to understand English and has been engaging in ethnic POV pushing,[59][60] WP:BATTLE,[61][62] misrepresentation of sources,[63] calling constructive edits a vandalism.[64][65][66] There are more issues and none of them have been resolved. Throughout this thread he has only signified his incompetence and made false allegations towards others. I dont see why we should continue wasting time on this incompetent editor.

After throwing empty accusations, Xinjao has now resorted to fabricate information about me in place of admitting his mistakes, and this above response was the last straw where he called this edit a removal of "Indus valley references". Even worse that Xinjao went ahead to promote these false allegations and fabrication on the article talk page. [67] This is nothing but clear harassment and also an ideal example of WP:BATTLE. For these many reasons I am proposing an indef block. We can also decide if we should topic ban or decide it upon his return.

  • Support indef block as proposer. Lorstaking (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This editor has been digging a hole both in their editing history and in this thread, and it is time to leave them in the hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the accused. I have presented enough diffs to show the User:Lorstaking is committed to a nationalist agenda as seen by his edits with the common theme of removing information; has no patience to discuss his editing; admittedly refused to engage in talk pages; failed to discuss grievances prior to raising this request; obsessed with banning from day one and has continuously insulted my English. --Xinjao (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
By deliberately misrepresenting my edits you have only signified your incompetence and revealed your desparation for your ethnic and nationalist POV pushing. Same with these other false accusations that you continue to throw without evidence. Keep giving us more reasons to get rid of you. Lorstaking (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm going to have to agree with this. This conversation spanning multiple threads hasn't been going anywhere and has become toxic. Given this editors recent actions as was previously discussed including leaving a superfluous threat on my (talkpage), I no longer have the confidence of this user's ability to maintaining a neutral POV. It is not the job of the editor to promote a political POV, but only to report what is the scholarly consensus. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
EdwardElric2016 I agree that I may have overreacted towards you. For that at least, I apologise, but I would have appreciated if you discussed things on the talk page before reverting edits. --Xinjao (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Xinjao I reverted those edits because you were making massive changes to the Cradle of Civilization article without gaining a consensus which is why I undid them and recommended that you resolve the matter in the talk page. I didn't engage because I believed it wasn't only my place to decide on this issue but simply to enforce the consensus. I was waiting for other people to respond to this topic especially administrators who usually have the final say. I do however accept your apology and wish things went differently. I do kind of agree that this recommendation for a block came a little too quickly for my tastes but given your disruptive history on other articles, rules have to be enforced. I do however hope you learn from this and become a more productive editor in the future if you return after the block is lifted assuming it passes and if it is even lifted at all. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes EdwardElric2016. I understand your reasoning and I agree on the consensus part, but please note that my edit was an undoing of Lorstakings original edit from October.[68] --Xinjao (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Xinjao You shouldn't have immediately reverted Lorstaking's edit and should have instead discussed it in the talk page. Considering that Lorstaking's edit was supported by credible sources and that it had been on the article for several months without any issues prior to your reversion, it became accepted as the consensus position. Again you should have brought this up in the talk page before reverting anything that has been accepted for a while and backed up by credible sourcing. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed on the revert EdwardElric2016. Let's agree to disagree on the sources. Your support for this extreme measure is unfortunate because I realise you are one of the few neutral contributors. Under normal circumstances I am a lot more understanding of constructive feedback, but on this occasion you are in the good company of a user who falsely accused me of sockpuppeting not long ago, another one who has bashed my english eight times on this very page and a bunch of known POV pushers who believe that (I quote the words) "my edits are lending support to Pakistan". This has obviously resulted in a toxic discussion. --Xinjao (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Throwing around groundless accusations of vandalism is completely unacceptable and sanctionable in itself, but then Xinjao has been doing it recklessly for years now.[69][70][71][72][73] I'm astonished as to how he managed to evade sanctions in the past. That, coupled with the issues of nationalist editing and WP:CIR are reason enough to indefinitely block this disruption only account. —MBL Talk 07:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As you have falsely accused me of Sock puppeting just a few months ago [74], you should not be so astounded as to why I was not sanctioned when your arguements did not hold water. --Xinjao (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral I think a TBAN from any WP:ARBIPA topics (India or Pakistan) is necessary if this doesn't pass, but I'm not yet convinced that an indef block is needed. The problem of referring to content disagreements as "vandalism" should be solvable. Beyond that, I see POV-pushing regarding terminology to refer to India more than anything else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
He is not interested in anything else other than this particular subject and considers every comment to be a personal attack where someone is telling him about his mistakes. By telling him that he should prove that he can contribute elsewhere we will only increase workload for others, given his lack of understanding of English language and use of Wikipedia for battles. That's why I found indef block to be a better solution for this problem. He can be topic banned upon his return, but right now he needs some time off-Wikipedia and carefully read the policies before editing again. Lorstaking (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support CIR, simply checking out the editor's contributions to this thread it is apparent that he is misinterpreting practically everything. The other editor is not doing what Xinjao claims. Add to that, he appears to be editing to push a nationalistic agenda which makes me wonder if he is really NOTHERE. Indef him and add the condition that if he gets unblocked it is subject to a topic ban on subcontinent material, broadly construed. - Nick Thorne talk 09:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. Only here for nationalistic POV pushing and creating toxic conversations. Capitals00 (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and recommend discarding entire thread per power~enwiki. Indef blocks aren't a joke. There's a proper process for escalation which is adequately provided under WP:ARBIPA, and includes other solutions. And frankly I haven't seen evidence of any of those solutions being tried, let alone lesser sanctions like TBANS. But that is the worst case scenario. This appears to be more a dispute resolution issue which should have been taken to DRN or another neutral noticeboard first. But it wasn't, so how do we come to that conclusion? Also, it is rather ironic that the users accusing this user of "nationalist" editing are more or less guilty of the same themselves; or to be slightly moderate, have less than stellar records of the same issues. This really isn't the way to resolve content disputes. One only needs to read through the uncivil personal attacks above thrown left and right, and I'm surprised an admin hasn't jumped in already to close out this ugly WP:SOUP. This entire thread and "indef block proposal", IMO, is a farce. Regardless, let's leave the judgement with those 'competent' to make the final call. Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
"per power~enwiki"? You are misrepresenting his position because he supported the topic ban. You need to better stop justifying disruption by making empty accusations because you have been doing this too often for defending disruptive POV pushers of this area.[75] We don't need those who lack competence, and your opinion lacks rationale which is evidenced by your massive block log for disruption in this very same subject and years of deceptive sock puppetry.[76] Lorstaking (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The above comment exactly proves my point regarding WP:BATTLE and problematic, WP:TENDENTIOUS editors like you. Mar4d (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Your comment proves that only a disruptive long term sock abuser like you would welcome disruption of incompetent editors with ethnic POV agenda, due to your own lack of WP:COMPETENCE as further evidenced by your block log as well. Lorstaking (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
(Sigh) As I have no mood to engage, I'm going to leave this mockery of a thread here. Mar4d (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
What really convinced you to leave a spurious warning[77] on my talk page and engage in admin shopping[78]? I am going to consider this to be an extension of your incompetence. Lorstaking (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Precisely the above. Mar4d (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Since not even a lengthy ANI report could bring any change in his disruptive behavior, there is zero doubt that Xinjao is a net negative with these gross WP:CIR issues including his continued battleground mentality. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As I have not made any article edits for the last 5 days, your observation is questionable. A total of 2 edits prompted Lorstaking to raise an ANI, which is step 6 in dealing with [Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]. Xinjao (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
So that means you are allowed to cause disruption everywhere else only because you are not editing main articles in last couple of days. How come you can ignore entire history of your disruption? Thanks for making my vote look even more meaningful. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking from the above, Lorstaking is certainly a problem editor. I just hope all the issues will be dealt out with across the board before this becomes a long-term conduct issue. I don't have much hope, if I'm pessimistic. Mar4d (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
You need to post evidence for that and so far I can only see that you are desperately defending a POV editor. If you can't deal with the constructive criticism regarding your disruption and your support for disruption then you should avoid such discussions all together. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
If you ask me, this has little to do with "defending" or for that matter "supporting" anyone. It's more about a collective WP:BATTLE mentality, which I just observe in a much larger context and which has existed for a long time unfortunately. Please don't attempt to justify the immature behavior above under "constructive criticism". That's a very petty thing to do. Mar4d (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes the criticism was constructive to point out problems with your entirely flawed argument that why you are the only one person who is trying to support Xinjao and thinks that this thread should be closed when we are seeing a disruptive POV pusher who lacks competence and continues to stick to his battleground mentality and falsify evidence against others. Such an "immature behavior" from you to defend such an editor was completely unwarranted and only made you look desparate. If you believe in assuming bad faith towards a serious report, make accusations without diffs and wish that others should not talk about your blocks and issues then you really need to do something else. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose any block or any topic ban This is a dispute that can be easily sorted out. How many complaints have there been against this user by neutral, uninvolved individuals? I don't see any. I also noticed before that people propose bans and sanctions for users citing past blocks without even examining each block case individually and it's circumstances (such as my cases). But if we go by that reasoning, this user has not been blocked despite facing numerous kinds of accusations. All of these not surprisingly stem from opposition to constant disruptive editing by certain Indian users who engage in soap boxing across Pakistani pages in clear violation of WP:NPOV (a problem which dates over a decade with little being done about it, other than handing out topic bans to Pakistani users as opposed to upholding WP:NPOV across the India-Pakistan topic area as should be). The topic ban proposal is equally ridiculous. Each time an India-Pakistan dispute breaks out, topic ban proposals are put fourth by Indian POV pushers (and at times their supporters) to eliminate or reduce the chances of resistance from Pakistani editors while they free desecrate article after article with propaganda. It's not surprise to me that people endorsing a block/ban on him are in fact themselves nationalistic POV pushers across Pakistani pages alone such as Capitals00. The user in question has made repeated attempts to address his concerns about sourcing yet is threatened with the prospect of being banned. If this user turns out to be wrong with regards to sourcing, he can do with a warning or a request to deeper re-access sourcing policy, but for the time being it does not seem to be the case.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This was not a content dispute but conduct dispute and you significantly supported disruption of Xinjao since you are a long term disruptive POV pusher yourself with gross WP:CIR issues. Clearly you are a part of problem as well with all your ethnic and nationalist feuds, viewing editors as "Indian", "Pakistani", despite you were sitebanned by Arbcom for this disruption.[79] It seems as though you never really reformed and still believe that you get outnumbered because of some unknown reasons. But actual reasons are that you are a disruptive POV pusher and by defending incompetent editors like Xinjao you are only creating problems, even if you believe you are working for your "resistance". D4iNa4 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This most recent diff from Lorstalking [80] is POV tendentious editing on his part. He may need a TBAN from this area as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Power~enwiki Thats utter nonsense. Lorstaking is absolutely correct with his comment. You can check the sources present on the article as well as sources provided by other editors on talk page. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Parts of the Indus Valley Civilization, such as Mohenjo-daro were undoubtedly in modern-day Pakistan. It's not a WP:OR violation or a WP:SYNTH violation to interpret references to "India" as referring to the entire subcontinent, and I find it possibly in bad faith to argue such. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As usual that's utter nonsense. We can only write what reliable sources are saying in place of making up our own half baked opinion. Indian subcontinent is more than just Pakistan and India. All reliable sources say India and we can only mention it.[81] A lot of these POV pushers change Indian subcontinent to South Asia because of "Indian" term. Don't think about finding sense in these lame arguments. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
D4iNa4, that is utter nonsense, given that arbitrator was himself a POV pusher and was later rumored to be under investigation for harassment. Abrcom decisions themselves have been controversial and opposed, even by administrators. I'll be more than happy to share the diffs if you do so insist. That arbcom case was filed minutes by an admin after I reported him right here on ANI. Your comment about me being nationalistic is also an accusation that holds no ground as I have good relations with many Indians, including administrators, giving them an awards. I am careful to distinguish between Indian and nationalistic Indian POV. Even today the ban is contestable when it comes from abcoms who consist of supporters rather than actual arbitrators.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
No one, but only you in your dream world will believe that the ban wasn't justified and I better recall that your unban was in fact opposed by others[82] since they deemed that you were incompetent to ever reform. They were correct, because even after unban you have been frequently blocked and like it has been linked above [83] you are still under a last warning for your mass disruption. Even today you are working on "resistance" by supporting this incompetent Xinjao, in place of contributing in harmony. D4iNa4 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Your misleading statements again including that my unban was "opposed" by others and many users including Folwer&fowler who hasa great reputation here as well as Dbachman think otherwise. I think I'll follow Mar4d's example and ignore you from now on as you are clear on turning this into a battleground while faking the under guise of "harmony" when all you seem to stand for is non-neutral POV pushing.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
That gibberish probably gives you a sleep at night but it has no value when it comes to reality. None of these "many users" from your dream land defended you, I don't see any of them in this report where you got warned for your continued disruption. It means the fake fan base that you are trying to imagine, actually has no existence in reality. No wonder you have to defend xinjao, an incompetent POV pusher like yourself, for getting "resistance". D4iNa4 (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Even after seeing enough support for indefinite block, he is still badgering and showing his inability to hear what others are saying.[84] This is a case of WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. NadirAli's comments that Xinjao is useful as defense against "Indian users" shows battleground mentality of these problematic users. One can never argue in favor of these problematic users without deceiving others or being problematic than Xinjao, and that is already too apparent here. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully someone investigates you [85][86] Xinjao (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to write anything except address the deliberate mis-wording of my sentiments about "Defense against Indians". If only that were true. People can't swallow the truth so they misword others opposed to their constant POV pushing and soapboaxing. Also note some of the above mudslinging comments. If I or Mar4d had made or responded with similar comments, there would have been no doubt a storm cast in mine or Mar4d's direction, but users representing the larger crowd get a free pass to do so. But hey, welcome to Wikipedia. That's the way favoritism flourishes here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive and uncivil behavior by User:Rovingrobert[edit]

Hello. Rovingrobert is exhibiting a very poor (disruptive and uncivil) behavior:

1. He changed IPA transcriptions of foreign surnames from how the names are pronounced in English to how he thinks they're supposed to be pronounced: [87], [88], [89]. In the case of the second link, the response to my edit summary was I won't stop doing shit, bitch (EDIT: Here's another one: [90]).

2. He removed the pronunciation of Bjorn Fratangelo, saying that not everything needs a fucking IPA transcription. This surname does, its pronunciation isn't terribly straightforward.

3. He was edit-warring with me over the inclusion of [ʃ, ʒ] in transcriptions of Spanish (see [91] and [92] as well as [93] and [94]). In some cases, I just reverted him without being reverted again - see [95], [96], [97], [98] and [99]. The problem is that transcriptions enclosed within the IPA-es template link to Help:IPA/Spanish which doesn't really mention [ʒ] and uses [ʃ] in a very different manner. It took me some time to convince this guy to raise the issue on Help talk:IPA/Spanish. You can see for yourself how he worded what he wrote.

4. In his thread on Help talk:IPA/Spanish, he misrepresented the issue with the user LoveVanPersie, whose lack of WP:COMPETENCE (I can't call it differently) is wasting the time of other editors, myself included - see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#LoveVanPersie's transcriptions. It's quite strange how people who bring this up (he's the second person to do that within the last two days, which is also quite strange) when they talk to me or about me always forget how I spent hours and hours helping LVP with IPA. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

His response to this edit was fuk ya.

Do you think it'd be worth checking if RR is a sockpuppet of G-Zay? The reason I think this might be him is that for the last 6 months I've been successfully spotting G-Zay's sockpuppets and getting them banned via SI. He got aggressive with me only recently, calling me a harrasser and a loser for calling him out. It's suspicious how the insults, edit-warring and the misrepresentation of the issue with LVP happened a day before Rovingrobert started doing the same to me. Before that, he was perfectly nice to me: User_talk:Mr_KEBAB/Archive_4#Greetings, User_talk:Mr_KEBAB/Archive_5, User_talk:Mr_KEBAB/Archive_13#Hello. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that-way. I don't know IPA so I can't determine what's going on with those edits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Rickyc123 gaming the system - part 2[edit]

User:Rickyc123 was previously brought to ANI for his gaming the system behavior. Rundown on Rickyc123's past behavior:

1) Rickyc123 copied drafts (Polo Reyes, Devin Clark (fighter), Danielle Taylor (fighter), Darren Till) that were awaiting review in the WP:AfC process to create his own articles in June 2017. He was warned about it and apologized and claimed he wouldn't do it again (1 2), and was informed by User:PRehse that: "Its best practice that if a draft is waiting for review it should be left (better to alter the draft than create another article) but failing that you can still move it into article space with the move tab (top right). That way attribution is maintained and toes don't get stepped on. Copy paste should be avoided at all costs. Just saying."

2) Rickyc123 copied yet more drafts (Age Before Beauty (TV series), Yellowstone (U.S. TV series), Kerman Lejarraga, Caleb Konley) after the above incident, despite demonstrating that he now does know how to move drafts. Rickyc123 was also copy-and-pasting articles to his own redirect pages (with no content) with a slightly different name, and redirecting those original article to his own, instead of just moving the original article to the "improved" name (e.g. his article 2017 Java earthquake was copied-and-pasted from 2017 West Java earthquake, and redirected the latter to his own).

3) One of these copied drafts was my own. I then warned Rickyc123 in December 2017 about this inappropriate copy-and-pasting behavior. He removed my message indicating he read it. All the above articles have since been histmerged.

4) In January 2017, he yet again copies-and-pastes from The Ultimate Fighter 27 to create his own article The Ultimate Fighter: Undefeated (which was a redirect with no content), and turned the former into a redirect to his own copied article instead. Note that those two articles have seen been histmerged.

There were apparently other issues/incidences as well (such as mass creating inappropriate redirects), as brought up by User:CASSIOPEIA in the previous ANI, which resulted in User:Swarm giving him a formal warning.

I believe Rickyc123 is still gaming the system, albeit going about it in a smarter way now. He recently created an article that I believe is based heavily on a draft currently undergoing the WP:AfC process, this time at least making an effort to paraphrase and add a bit of new content. The similarities between the first revision of Kalindra Faria and the last revision of Draft:Kalindra Faria are unmistakable in my opinion, especially if you compare the infobox parameters and the mixed martial arts record table in the source editor page.

These two sentences for comparison:

  • From Draft:Kalindra Faria: "In 2017, Faria was set to make her UFC at UFC 216: Ferguson vs. Lee against Andrea Lee, however as Lee had previously failed a drugs test, USADA required her to be in the testing pool six months before competing, causing her to pull out."
  • From Kalindra Faria: "In 2017, Faria was set to make her UFC at UFC 216 against Andrea Lee, however as Lee had previously failed a drugs test, USADA required her to be in the testing pool six months before competing, causing her to pull out."

The almost exact same wording, the exact same sentence structure, the same grammatical error ("drugs test" instead of "drug test"), the same missing word ("made her UFC at UFC 2016" is missing the word debut), and both linked to the same incorrect Andrea Lee instead of Andrea Lee (fighter). Other suspiciously similar word choices like “fellow promotional newcomer” in the following sentence (the cited source does not use that term so it wasn’t copied from the source). Yet Rickyc123 claims to have never seen the draft prior to creating the article. You can read our conversation at his talk page, where he tries to explain the similarities. I do not buy his explanation. From the almost exact sentences above and the similarities between the infoboxes (exact same parameters including the birth_date parameter that uses “df” and the reach_in parameter that were used in the draft but Rickyc123 has not used in his previous UFC fighters articles) and the mixed martial arts record table, it seems clear to me that Rickyc123 saw the draft that is undergoing the WP:AfC process and rather than waiting for it to be approved/rejected at AfC, created his own article based heavily on the draft instead so as to game the system and get more articles credited to him with minimal effort on his part, while also wasting the efforts of other editors. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree the situation at Kalindra Faria is unambiguously a violation by Rickyc123. In addition to whatever block is deemed necessary, I think an indefinite prohibition on creating articles when a draft of the same name exists is needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Updated, the simpler prohibition is better. Even if there is a standard-offer compatible block here, I think the prohibition on article creations should be separate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I've left Rickyc123 unblocked so they can participate here but left a clear warning that any more article creations before this thread is resolved will result in a block. [100] --NeilN talk to me 04:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
He should just be moving the drafts. We have enough work to do at AfC without someone duplicating the pages into mainspace while we evaluate them. The mainspace versions should be G12 Copyvio deleted and the Drafts replace them. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I would also like to request for User:Rickyc123 to look through his past articles and come clean if he can remember any others that were copied from other editors' drafts so that the appropriate histmerges can be done. I previously requested he do this in December 2017 after realizing he had copied one of my drafts. He removed my message and did not reply, which led to me investigating some of his past articles and requesting histmerges for the copied drafts I found listed above (except for the Darren Till draft which had already been deleted, admin Anthony Appleyard found that one at the previous ANI). However, if there were drafts that were under slightly different names and/or have since been deleted under WP:G13 (this behavior has been going on for over 6 months), then there is a chance we missed them and it'll be difficult to find these drafts without Rickyc123's help. Obviously he cannot be forced to help, but it would be a nice gesture. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
From the history presented here, there is no way to assume good faith about their actions. The behavior is not simply 'gaming the system' it is flat out plagiarism and copyright violation. We indef editors who are serial copyright violators. Just because the violation is internal and no one is going to sue Wikipedia is not a reason to be be soft on this type of behavior. I would go further and say that repeatedly creating redirects and copying others' work to falsely show 'creation' of the article exhibits a level of deception and bad faith that should not be accepted in this project no matter the length of the editor's service or their other contributions. Indef and move on. The project does not need this type of "contribution". Jbh Talk 15:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

One thing before we get started is all the things in the previous ANI, I admit to and I know I have done wrong. Second is that I'm not so stupid as to copy a draft days after I've just got warned from doing it, if you compare the differences between mine and the drafts they're completely different. Including the infobox and MMA record section. (I actually believe there's is better) and if I had copied I'd have used the more superior version. As for the drug and drugs test thing. While it may officially be drug test, everyone says drugs test. Also if you look at any MMA article it tells you about opponents using that format. All promotional newcomers are referred to as promotional newcomers. And your whole basis of you saying I copied is based off 10 words in a 100+ word article that took me about 3 hours to make(what other evidence other than that sentence is there of me copying) and I will admit to the fact that I never manually enter the format on Wikipedia, I always copy and paste infoboxes and MMA record tables from other articles. And change it so it applies to that MMA fighter. If I was copying and pasting don't you think I would have checked it for mistakes before I put it on, when you look at revisions they are completely different I've got things they have and they've got things I haven't. As for the asking about drafts and stuff:

  • There aren't any drafts left that haven't been sorted.

The ones I know but don't know if they've been sorted are:

As for the copy and paste thing where I changed the Article to an alternative name, I did that with West Java Earthquake, The Ultimate Fighter 27 and 2017 Washington train derailment.

As for articles which have been changed into articles after I've made them redirects, there is :

All darts and Australian Open articles it says I made are also redirects I made that people changed into articles.

I've made Calvin Kattar, David Ramos(I know he hasn't had his 3 fights yet but he will have by UFC 224) and Deiveson Figueiredo articles so can someone let me know on my talk page when I'm allowed to put on articles again so I can drop them.

I'm actually going on holiday to Pakistan for a family wedding (The flight is 12 tomorrow UK time) and I don't know what the WiFi is like down there (cos I'm staying with family in a small village and not a hotel). So if I don't respond to anything said it's not because I'm not cooperating. I'm due back Monday 27th. So I might not respond before then.

One last thing, I've said it before but I'd like to reiterate all of the things said in the last ANI are true and I am guilty of a lot of things but I have done no wrongdoing in this Kalindra Faria article, I didn't copy her draft or use her draft, If people actually look at the comparisons between the article when I made it and the draft. They are in no.way similar. I'm not so unintelligent that if I were to reoffend I'd do it only days after the ANI had closed and I had got my warning. I don't believe people are actually looking at the revisions and comparing them, they are reading what is said in here and User:Bennv3771 had nothing to say when I asked him apart from those 10 words what was there to indicate I had copied and as soon as I found out this ANI had started my heart dropped cos i know noone is gonna side with me because of my history. I'm not gonna lie as a 23 year old man I was genuinely upset and angered when this time when I actually did nothing wrong. I was accused of copying. Is this what it's gonna be like every time I make a new article. What upset me more is the article took me 3 hours to make, I was only half paying attention to the Newcastle Vs Manchester United that was on while I was making it and after all that time of me making it. But rather than getting a thanks( which I don't really expect or want for that matter, that is not why I edit) I get it thrown back in my face saying that I've copied and pasted even though the two articles are vastly different. And I'm not even even going to say that I copied it but improved it a little because that would be a lie. They have got loads of good information that I haven't included. And of I were to copy I'd use all of their best bits and add in my own stuff. But when you actually look at the articles rather than reading this ANI, you will see that we use completely different sources, he's got more info in his infobox, we've got different extra notes in the MMA box, he's got a load of redlinks and my revision didn't have any. Plus the overall actual content is different. Just to reiterate after this me not saying anything on this ANI is not me being uncooperative, I am just going to a family wedding in Pakistan and I don't know how the internet is there.Rickyc123 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123

@Rickyc123: "User:Bennv3771 had nothing to say when I asked him apart from those 10 words what was there to indicate I had copied" I did not have "nothing to say". I just did not buy your explanation and figured that if that was all your had to offer than there was no point continuing the heated conversation on your talk page. Also, I brought up more than just "those 10 words" (it's actually 40 words by the way). Bennv3771 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for looking through your past articles as I requested. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I compared the wiki text of the version where the bulk of material was added [101] to the draft as it existed at that time [102]. The infobox and table are identical except for cosmetic changes on three lines. No differing fields between the two. I am confident the infobox and table were plagerized and the claim it was not is at best a deceptive untruth.

    There is change in the prose. However its independence from the original has been questioned above. Regardless, even if the prose were 100% original Rickyc123 knowingly appropriated a huge amount of another editor's work.

    Wikipedia makes it very easy to build upon the work of others, in fact that is what Wikipedia is all about. Willfully claiming another editor's work as one's own is inexcusable. Doing so repeatedly and after being warned about it is, in my opinion, one of the few unforgivable acts an editor of Wikipedia can commit. Jbh Talk 02:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I would like to add that there have been other behavioral issues as well. Such as creating inappropriate redirects, then recreating them immediately after they were deleted. Also, removing, without any explanation, my comment attributing the article to its original author on the talk pages of two articles (1 2) he copied (this was when I thought they couldn't be histmerged due to parallel page histories, they've been histmerged now though). Bennv3771 (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal - Article creation ban[edit]

I'm not convinced Rickyc123 needs to be blocked beyond the voluntary 2 week break he appears to be on. I do feel that an indefinite prohibition on article creation is necessary. Even if I take Ricky's statement at face value, the WP:CIR inability to find drafts for articles is problematic.

  • Support as proposer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Sanctions should probably wait for Rickyc123's return. Also, from the lack of input here, I doubt anything will come of this and it will be archived long before that.

    That said, I do not know that I feel confident this would address the behavior at issue. My concern is that, from the evidence given, this looks to be an editor who has repeatedly taken the work of other editors and effectively claimed it as their own. Not only is this a violation of core Wikipedia policy and repugnant to academic/social norms, it activly causes harm to the fabric of the project. Others put a lot of work into their drafts, from identifying the subject to the drudgery of compiling and writing the tables in this, most recent, article. To have someone remove all credit for that work in the article history by copy/paste recreations must be extremely disheartening and, I surmise, leave a very poor taste about their future Wikipedia participation.

    I am disinclined to believe assurances by this editor that they will not do it again because I do not find their claim, after previously being warned about other articles, of not copying the table believable. Maybe I am missing something and there is some way that two, effectivly identical, tables - one springing fully formed as if from the head of Zeus - can be innocently created. Until that is shown to me though... Jbh Talk 16:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Jbhunley. They were already warned in June 2017, December 2017 and January 2018, yet here we are again. We are way beyond assuming good faith. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • 'Support' but prefer user ban indefinitely- I am the one who initial report Rickyc123 on this ANI . I would go further no only he should NOT have the right to create any article he should NOT have the right to redirect as well. He has recreated hundred of NOT notable subjects creation and immediately redirect to a general related page. His doing so is to wait until other editor create the article when the subject is notable and his name would appear in the article name as the creator. See here Redirects to List of current UFC fighters. I have gone thought all Rckyc123's contribution, talkpage, creation, other editors talk page who communicated with him which took me a few days with hours spent and with the evidence that he has been told by other editors of what he has done and been warned a few time and still doing the same actions. It is self evident he is WP:NOTHERE to contribute but to take advantage of other editors work and make it his own and even User:Bennv3771 asked him to take down those article which he stoled from him from his user page, he has still not doing so. His actions deter and discourage other editors to create notable articles and shy from contribution to Wikipedia for Rickyc123 just want to decorate his user page with created article whether his own or not. I would go further what what the ban suggested here to ban indefinately as it is clearly gaming the system just like shockpuppet in a different way- it is "plagiarism" which he has done so many times even with warnings for he has not respected of Wikipedia policies. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We should be past this point. His claim that he didn't copy anything is quite obviously a lie. I actually can't even believe that we're humoring claims from a serial plagiarist that it's just a coincidence that his content is identical to the draft version. I literally just gave him a strong warning that he would be blocked if he did it again, and he maliciously and subversively ignored the warning and then played dumb when called out on it. I don't even know why we're hashing this out in yet another long thread when everyone agrees what the problem is. This is a disruptive editor who's already pushed the limit to the very threshold of an indef block, and then crossed it. I totally disagree with leaving them unblocked and discussing moderate sanctions. JBH has aptly explained just how toxic and cancerous this behavior is to the project from a social perspective, and I'll add onto that by pointing out that this is also a copyright issue. Wikipedia is free content to share and remix—under the condition that attribution is provided to the authors. In general, the page history satisfies this requirement. But when you copy within Wikipedia, you need to attribute the copied text to the original contributors (usually by linking to the original page). As the policy points out, "If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy." Does anyone here have a reason this user should not be indeffed? Swarm 00:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef for serial plagiarism and copyright violation. Jbh Talk 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef for persistent copyright violations despite several warnings. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

PERMISSION ERROR while trying to create page[edit]

Administratot on duty

Hi everybody,

I`m new to editing and creating pages on wiikipedia. I just edited a page and thought it wasn`t much of a big deal to create a page since I have my article ready. I`m humbly requesting that an Administratot help me create the page. This is the error message I`m receiving: Permission error You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email. Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayoolu (talkcontribs) 12:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dayoolu firstly we would need to know what page you are attempting to create as there are a large number of creation protected pages. Secondly we would need to know what it is your going to be adding to the page before we can create it. If you create the page as either a draft or in your Sandbox we can then move it when ready to the appropriate location. Amortias (T)(C) 12:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It is very likely that this is the same person we saw a couple of days ago. That said, I see nothing in the title blacklist log and nothing in the general logs under that username. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296 § Ryan Hampton (Author) for the previous incident. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This user is most likely tripping a title blacklist. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Noodlefish96[edit]

Reported user is blocked as a sock puppet. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User kept reverting properly sourced information, adding unsourced statements, and justified their own edits as "improvements." We were both blocked for edit warring on an article (my block lasting 24 hours and theirs lasting 60), but I failed to mention that part of my doing was removing unsourced information and adding citations. When repeatedly asked to provide citations, the user has not done so, and instead responded with: "I'm not considered to be edit warring and I have consensus for my edits," when per the article's talk page, no such thing has been reached. Examples of their reverts are below:

·This edit was described one way, but ABC News, The Hollywood Reporter, but Variety say otherwise.

·This diff's description says the user removed information because it needed a citation when said user removed the information as well as its source.

·This revert's description reads, "section was improved," except that one of the suggestions made by the GA reviewer of the article was not to overlink article titles, which this revert did.

Please assist me on how to proceed. Thank you in advance! DantODB (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @DantODB: Very sorry to hear about your recent troubles. But this is not the place, I'm afraid, for resolving such content-orientated disputes as you present here. Obviously it can't be a behavioural matter as the other party is still blocked. Wait another ~48 hours, and then the both of you put your heads together around table, chew it over, and compromise item by item, on the talk page. Feel free, of course, to start the discussion first, so it's ready and waiting! If you are suggesting that actually (part?) of your block was exempt from edit-warring sanctions, then I'm afraid I have to inform you otherwise. The only thing that would have applied in your case was blatant vandalism—none of which is exemplified in your diffs. (Although I'm in no way condoning their behaviour or suggesting those edits or their remarks should not have been challenged—just that they should have been done so in a different way.) Cheers, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I blocked Noodlefish for a variety of reasons, including edit-warring and gaming my request for self-reversion, and they're still blocked. I also blocked DantOBD for four reverts on the material that Noodlefish was disrupting, but for a shorter term, and counseled him on reversion/edit-warring policy. @DantOBD, please follow my advice previously given: I suggest that you concisely address Noodlefish's edits on the talkpage, good, bad or indifferent. That way you'll have a basis for reviewers and uninvolved editors to see what you're doing and why, rather than having to parse a wall of edit history without edit summaries, as has previously been the case. Once you've done that you can start to work on the article again, being careful not to be drawn into an edit-war - if disruption resumes, you'll need to use AN3 or contact an administrator. I am not optimistic about Noodlefish, they have had a bit of trouble with listening to advice and sticking to commitments. We will see what they do when their block expires. In the meantime, please lay out your proposed edits on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@DantODB: Noodlefish has been blocked indefinitely as a sock so hopefully that makes things a bit easier for you. --NeilN talk to me 21:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 Acroterion NeilN: Thank you all! DantODB (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Multi-user edit war at Somalis[edit]

There appears to be a multi-user edit war unfolding at Somalis. I have tried to help resolve the issue on the article talk page, but I have to admit that I am struggling to fully understand the dispute. Note that this discussion resulted in a verdict that it might be necessary to adopt a 1RR policy on Somalia-related articles. I think the issue would benefit from the eyes of some administrators at this point. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I protected it fully for three days. Yes, the wrong version, of course! Drmies (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Should the latest edit be reverted? I've kind of lost track of what the consensus version was! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm just a little birdie who blocks on instinct... Drmies (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
As a wp:Rouge admin he is obliged to protect wrong version. It's in our membership agreements. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Kudos to anyone who can work out what the wrong version is! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I am unsure what to do here, should I explain the situation or wait for admins' contribution? The protected version was not the consensus version (obviously!). --Kzl55 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Kzl55: Could you link to that version. If it's the last stable, pre-edit war version, an admin could restore. The purpose of PP though is to induce stakeholders to discuss competing versions as consensus can change. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Could I also request that the editors involved in the dispute try to agree on a brief talk-page summary of the two different versions of the article that are being advocated? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I reverted the latest edit but only because the user was a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: If you take into account the agreement we have in the talk page (Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, Sandman25 and myself) that the article and section should be representative of all Somalis, as broadly as possible, as opposed to having two Sultans in the section belonging to the same group and the same sub-group (as supported by Soupforone and Cabuwaaqwanaag a confirmed sock of serial disruptive editor), then it is this version [103] though it is neither stable (due primarily to opposition by editor Soupforone who states that "...there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed. This is just a courtesy rather than a necessity" [104]). It has been restored now due to editor Cabuwaaqwanaag being confirmed as a sock. I would like to add that following a request to take the matter to the talk page by Cordless Larry [105], everyone was discussing the issue exclusively in the talk page until Soupforone's unilateral decision to go back to editing the page [106], which they continued despite requests to continue the discussion in the talk page [107], [108]. @Cordless Larry: I can do that no problem. Best wishes --Kzl55 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify the above: I agreed in principle that the images should be broadly representative, but haven't really been able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've summarized the file stuff on the talkpage. Soupforone (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I have also placed (a somewhat long, but necessary) summary in the talk page.
@Dlohcierekim, Cordless Larry, and Drmies: May I also add that editor Soupforone has a history of unhelpful edits of the Sultan Abdillahi's file in Commons? They attempted to get the file deleted, [109]. This was unsuccessful and the a decision of keep was reached. They then employed the same combative style of editing even after a decision of keep was reached, which forced a moderator to protect the file due to ("continued unsuccessful attempts to get the file deleted by one editor") [110]. Which started this discussion on their talk page [111]. On another file I have uploaded they have made a name change request stating that the file source does not specify ethnicity or clan the skull owner belonged to [112]. This is despite the the source clearly stating both [113]. What was particularly problematic about that edit was their removal of relevant categories from file and replacement with 'fossils' [114]. This resulted in this Common's Administrator's Noticeboard discussion [115] where a number of editors agreed the behaviour was disruptive. They only managed to escape sanctions after acknowledgement of their mistake and promising to cease that behaviour. Yet they are employing the same contentious, pov pushing, style of editing across a number of pages. One example of that being the current discussion at Somalis, another example of current disruptive editing on the Mahmoud Ali Shire page includes addition of unsourced content and content from self-published and user-generated sources (as well as travel guides) despite multiple requests to only add content from reliable sources [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122]. On both occasions they were supported by long term vandal and confirmed sock Cabuwaaqwanaag. Can anything be done about them? --Kzl55 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Commons situation is unfortunately not nearly as cut and dry as presented above since the administrator who nominated the sultan file for deletion (and later protected the file description page in their preferred version, despite being an involved editor) has since been desysoped and indefinitely blocked for socking [123]. As for the sultan files on the Wikipedia page, I've summarized the actual situation on the talkpage, as Cordless Larry requested above [124]. Soupforone (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The subsequent history of the moderator is not relevant to this discussion. Your behaviour was disruptive as deemed by other uninvolved editors on Commons. You have only escaped sanctions after acknowledgement of your mistake and promising to cease that behaviour. Yet you continue the same pattern of disruptive behaviour as seen in the edits above. This in turn is causing issues on multiple pages within the project and is an issue that needs addressing. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
That administrator was desysoped for general disruption, so of course it's relevant. But I don't expect you to agree. Soupforone (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It is not relevant. Their subsequent actions have no relation to the topic at hand. You have not commented on their actions during the incident referenced above, but rather on some unrelated actions that happened after that situation. And they were not the only party to deem your behaviour disruptive. Other uninvolved editors did as well. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the desysop did not just pertain to their subsequent edits. It pertained to their entire log list. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

War Zone Comment[edit]

Another dispute about the Horn of Africa!!?! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The Horn of Africa, including Somalia, is the locus of battleground editing because it is an area of the world that is a real battleground. The English Wikipedia has dealt with battleground editing of battleground areas, such as Israel and Palestine and India and Pakistan, and areas that have been battlegrounds in the past and where memories are long, such as the Balkans (where World War One started) and Eastern Europe (where World War Two and the Cold War started), in the past. The battleground editing of these battleground areas has been dealt with by ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which are sometimes draconian and so work well at suppressing the battles.

There have been too many disputes about editing involving Somalia, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is time either to ask the ArbCom to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or to craft some version of Community General Sanctions that works as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, for the Horn of Africa. Otherwise these disputes will keep on coming back here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I indicated to the moderator Doug Weller on the talkpage that I was okay with the Deria file remaining [125]. He thanked me for that post as well. Ergo, the dispute is essentially over. Soupforone (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see my thanks as relevant to the bigger issue. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. The issue is not over, mainly due to Soupforone's refusal to accept input from other editors involved in the discussion, who all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible, not highlighting any particular group. @Robert McClenon and Doug Weller: I have addressed a pattern of behavioural issues by editor Soupforone that is contributing to to battleground editing in the project here, would really appreciate any input on how to take this further. Best wishes --Kzl55 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Doug Weller didn't indicate anything about the issue not being over, nor did he write that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of individuals as possible. Nor for that matter did I indicate that the page should not feature as broad a base of individuals as possible. Those are straw man fallacies. Soupforone (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I did not say Doug made comment on inclusivity. You attempted to suggest the issue was over because Doug thanked your post. You were corrected. This is exemplary of the kind of problematic behaviour I described earlier. The issue is not over just because you decided it is over. There is an agreement in the talk page that the article and section should be inclusive of all Somali groups (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself all agree to this, though Cordless Larry did not make a statement on the edits yet). Your edits attempted to highlight two Sultans from the same clan (Darod), the same sub-clan (Kablalah) and same sub-sub-clan (Harti). So far you were only supported by long term disruptive editor of the project and confirmed sock Cabuwaaqwanaag. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually, I only restored the original Sultan Shire file. My editing rationale for this was that he "belongs to completely separate sultanate from other rulers" [126]. I also never claimed that this file choice had anything to do with "clan" since of course it did not. Further, what I actually wrote above is that Doug Weller "thanked me for that post as well", not that "the issue was over because Doug thanked my post". The latter causal phrasing is yours. The point was to show that Doug Weller was aware that I had agreed to the Deria file, which is what the OP is about. Also, Cordless Larry did not indicate that "the article and section should be inclusive of all Somali groups". What he actually wrote is that "the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim". That "a diverse range of images" automatically means "all Somali groups" is a leap, for that diversity could just as easily apply to gender, vocation, age group or birthplace as to clan/subclan. Also, you wrote above that "all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible", which would include Doug Weller. However, Doug Weller did not indicate this either. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And the argument goes on and on, and will perhaps go on until the Great Rift Valley splits the Horn of Africa off from the rest of Africa. We need draconian remedies for dealing with disruptive editing about the Horn of Africa. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
An edit confirmation filter might be useful to better track socks and meatpuppeting and to vet ip and single purpose account edits. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


User: apparently introduced pieces of subtle hoax into various articles in October 2017, one of which in the prominent article Arabic I discovered only yesterday. There is probably no action against the user (IP) needed at this moment, but I gave him a (first) warning and most importantly someone should check his other contributions to see whether any other malicious edits have survived to this day. I'm not very active on English Wikipedia, so don't know whether this is the best place to report, but I can't check it all myself and thought that letting others know would be good. --Blahma (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Blahma: The (dynamic) IP was active from October 6th to 10th last year. Apart from correcting the offending edit (I presume it's this one) and checking other edits, there's not much anyone can do, I'm afraid. Kleuske (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree. And I would be happy if somebody checked those other edits, because there might be more hoaxes by this user still lying around, like the one I have found and fixed. If there was a template to mark a past vandal or a page to list users whose contributions require a check, I would have posted there instead (my home Wikipedia has a page for such kind of reports). --Blahma (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking at this editor's edits, I discovered this one, where they replaced the name of the Slovenian PM with that of the President as participating in a summit meeting. After much searching, I found this report, which makes it clear that it was indeed the PM who attended. This makes me very uneasy about the IP's many edits to Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro, which consist of unsourced additions to the list of those attending. I cannot find a list of those attending, but I am very sceptical about those added by the IP, and I think that they should all be removed. I suspect that the same is true of their similar edits to other imternational meetings.
The IP's incorrect removal of the UK from the list of OECD members was swiftly reverted, as was their similar removal of the UK from membership of the Eastern Partnership. The IP has also edited to claim that Syria borders Kyrgyzstan,[127] that Arabic is an official language of the European Union,[128] and that Burundi is a Mediterranean state.[129]
Given all this, I propose that all of the IP's edits are reverted as vexatious trolling. Is there a bot that can carry out this sort of task? RolandR (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/ appears to be the same troll, not exactly sure how a bot could do it, only about 30-40 edits so undo manually.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
All the additions to death and state funeral of fidel castro appear to have been reverted anyhow.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I note that this IP was reported to AIV by Dukwon for this behaviour last October, but that no action was taken. The complaint suggests that this is a known IP-hopping vandal. This type of vandalism is hard to detect, but the net effect can be to flood Wikipedia with false information, and it is necessary to find a way to deal with this if we want to preserve some integrity. RolandR (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


In the past, user:Sander.v.Ginkel was the subject to many discussions on this page due to his substandard work. See here, here, here, here and here.

Sander.v.Ginkel got an offer from a user:MFriedman to protect/improve articles something that made people unhappy. See also here. Still, MFriedman went on with moving articles back to main space from draft space, effectively circumventing/ignoring the clean up operation. So far, so good. And the name stuck in my memory.

Recently, Sander.v.Ginkel placed an article on the Dutch Wikipedia nl:Ilse Kamps. And out of the blue, after a 4.5 year hiatus, MFriedman showed up to vote for keeping the article due to the article being properly sourced. But MFriedman added these sources, after his vote. At that moment my alarm bells went off!
I requested a sockpuppet investigation and it came back positive. The Checkuser confirmed that Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman were identical.

So now we are confronted with a lot of articles that were never checked for the substandard editing of Sander.v.Ginkel moved back into main space by what turned out to be a sockpuppet of Sander.v.Ginkel, MFriedman. This is clearly misusing a sockpuppet to protect articles against thorough scrutiny.

What to do next? The Banner talk 15:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

 Checkuser needed I don't know what's the community consensus regarding accepting CU results on another wiki. If one of our checkusers confirms then I'm looking at indeffing both accounts. --NeilN talk to me 16:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Neil, the CU is stale as MFriedman has not edited on the English Wikipedia since February 2017. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. At the moment, I wouldn't support a block for it would be against policy. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
(moved from AN) No need for an investigation. You can just ask me, and yes I'm using both accounts Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman. When the account Sander.v.Ginkel was blocked I used MFriedman, including review my own articles I created with. See that there are no main issues in the articles I reviewed and added references where needed. See as example here, here, here, here, here, here etc.. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I've blocked Sander.v.Ginkel for six months and the puppet account indefinitely. --NeilN talk to me 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
And how is Sander.v.Ginkel's block preventative in any way? Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Salvio giuliano: It prevents them from quite flagrantly violating basic policies whenever they feel like it. --NeilN talk to me 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, the latest violation was one year ago. I agree that the sock could be blocked, but Sander's block to me seems punitive since it is so long after the fact. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
A year ago was when SvG also stopped editing before resuming this weekmonth. I do not believe he would have stopped socking had he not been caught last week on the Dutch Wikipedia. --NeilN talk to me 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Scores of his pages moved to Draft are coming up for WP:G13 after being tagged as promising drafts 6 months ago which lead to this discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Pierre_Le_Roux Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Back when this issue first came up there was pretty clear consensus to indef block this user. Unfortunately, that consensus was overruled in a pretty blatant supervote. If the views of the participants in that discussion had not been discarded and ignored on a whim, this ongoing disruption could have been avoided- as I said at the time. Reyk YO! 16:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No issue with me if editors want to change my six month block into an indef. --NeilN talk to me 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Already requested a User_talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#February_2018 block review. My review is to indef. There are a lot of page moves that need to be checked again Special:Contributions/MFriedman Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians have already misjudged the likelihood that SvG would continue to be a problem editor. I think some editors have, in their misguided mercy, forgotten that WP:BLOCKDETERRENT is supposed to have deterrent value. If en-wiki is unwilling to halt the editing of problem editors, then it only encourages this sort of activity where crocodile-tears promises and the forgiveness of long-undetected misbehavior becomes the norm. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've just noticed that MFriedman commented in the thread linked by Reyk above that somewhat swayed a few following comments! SvG claims he "wasn't aware how bad it is to use another account." It should be obvious that you shouldn't use an alternative account to support yourself. With this in mind, I'd support upgrading the block to indefinite. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

MFriedman discussed SvG as another person here [130] which is deceitful and suggestive we can't believe the statements in the unblock request either. It is pretty clear that their promotions of SvG pages back to mainspace were problematic from the talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support indef- obviously. Reyk YO! 19:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Having read through this past thread and noting SvG's assertion that he wasn't "aware how bad it is to use another account" [131] I believe more than ever that my six month block was justified. This isn't tripping over some Wikipedia policy, this is an indication of a lack of basic common sense and ethics. We cannot have an editor deficient in both areas editing freely here. --NeilN talk to me 19:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't know Slowking4, I don't know if this could be one sockfarm. I guess not, though. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Permaban. Now. I checked the stats: Pages created 37,054 of which 22,482 since deleted, I don't think I have ever seen an editor with that many deleted creations before - and then add the blatantly deceptive sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the consensus is clear; given the deceptive sockpuppetry after they were very lucky to get away without an indef ban last time, I have changed the block to an indefinite one. This is required in order to prevent further damage to the project by an individual who clearly does not see the need to follow our rules, and who cannot be trusted to conform to the expectations of the wider editing community. I haven't had time to consider the question of this user's articles yet, but I think that is a discussion that needs to be had separate to this block. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC).
  • Indef block - I am not impressed in the least by the Wikilawyering/WP:BUROish arguments presented above. WP:IAR is clear: when a rule is preventing you from improving Wikipedia, ignore the rule. Well, the rules cited above which supposedly prevent the indeffing of SvG are standing in the way of the project being improving by removing from its midst a blatantly problematic editor, problematic both in their behavior and in their content output. Wikipedia will be improved by not having SvG around, so let's stop gnashing our teeth and worrying about technicalities and get rid of him. Let WP:COMMONSENSE reign. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The articles[edit]

I started G5ing the article, but looking at it again, that may not be what's needed. Many were moved back while SvG was not actually blocked, though he undoubtedly would have been if this had been spotted. If they had remained in Draft, most would long ago have qualified for G13 as very few had any substantive edits at all other than the SvG sock (a few bots and formatting edits, and almost none with any edits in the last 6 months). The issues that led tot he move to Draft have undoubtedly not been fixed in more than a tiny proportion of cases, since there have been few if any edits to any of them.

Should I leave them nuked, or restore and move them back to Draft? Guy (Help!) 20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I somehow thought that at some point I nuked all the articles which were left in the draft, there were around 5K of them. I am surprised that there are still any left. Is it clear what the origin of these drafts is? Were they moved out of the draft and then moved back? On an unrelated note, I do not see anything controversial with the deletions, but delinking the pages from Olympic-related pages might be not necessarily the best idea - all Olympians are notable, and redlinks are way more visible than black unlinked text. Also, if an article is created by a good faith user, it takes a bit of time to figure out where it should be linked from.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Created by SvG, moved to draft during cleanup, moved back by MFriedman with comments like "checked" or "no SvG issues". Guy (Help!) 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I see. I would say then indefblock and mass deletion. This is clearly evasion of sanctions imposed by community on SvG.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
They shouldn't be unlinked. There are several prolific creators of Olympian biographies, and this adds a time-consuming additional step if/when they create these ones. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
OK. will bear that in mind. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Suck's that a nuke had to happen and olympic medal winner's like Alec Potts end up deleted but i guess it had too happen, feel sorry for the poor soul who has to clean up the nuke's results. GuzzyG (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: - I'm happy to (re)create a stub for any nuked Olympians. If you (or anyone else) wants any doing, drop me a note on my talkpage, or list them at WT:OLY. I'll do this one later at some point. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I looked at this article. The version SvG moved into article space had four sentences, one of which was an obvious BLP violation [132] (admins only). How can they have missed this? --NeilN talk to me 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Between you and me, I don't think the sports fans necessarily look very hard - they are generally looking to have as many articles as possible, and any article that has superficial referenciness gets pretty much a free pass. Hence the massive problem with SvG. They mean well, but their inclusion standards are, IMO, well below the norm for Wikipedia. "Competed in X" suffices even if nobody wrote about the person in any way at all other than in the results table. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I posted a list of SvG drafts tagged as "Promising Drafts" on User_talk:Legacypac#SvG. They have the same issues that the others do, and should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikiedebs and North Korea[edit]

User:Wikiedebs is on a one-user mission to remove negative information about North Korea from Wikipedia. This mainly takes the form of blatant deletions, e.g. [133] [134] [135] [136]. They constantly lie in edit summaries and incorrectly mark them as minor, e.g. [137] [138]. Their strategy is to make an innocuous edit towards the top of a page to disguise content removals below [139]. More recently they have resorted to childishly bombarding articles with "citation needed" tags. [140] [141] And finally just plain and simple edit-warring [142] [143]. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That sure is a lot of blanking. And this response isn't really what I'd be looking for as an explanation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Not all of the inclusions are what I'd characterise as "propaganda", but the seeming focus on replacing references to "North Korea" with "DPRK" is definitely in line with North Korean propaganda practice. The marking of major revisions as "minor" is quite problematic, and if nothing else a warning is justified for that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC).

Wikiedebs has continued edit-warring after I opened this thread. [144] Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

They haven't really, User:Ivar the Boneful. I do agree this is major disruption, and has been going on for far too long, so thank you for reporting it. At the same time, it's a little misleading to say they have continued edit-warring. After they saw and acknowledged your ANI alert (admittedly in a silly way, as the Ninja points out), they have on the contrary self-reverted some of their edit warring. They may not realize it would be a good idea to respond here as well, and I have now urged them to. (P.S., a minor point: their editing also seems careless, going by the sampling I've done; they change what was grammatically correct phrasing to introduce errors ("the south had declaring statehood", "he authorize war"). Bishonen | talk 09:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC).

Yes, that is true, I have "self-reverted" some of my previous "edit warrings." Based on your advice elsewhere, I am responding here. Perhaps my editing is somewhat careless. I would agree that "not all of the inclusions are..."propaganda"." I did try to change some of the instances of North Korea to DPRK on certain pages, but with Ivar the Boneful's reversals of my edits on those pages, I gave up in that realm. The same goes for the edits to the Kim Il Sung page. As much as I may disagree with parts of it personally, as my edits show, the fact they can be reversed makes such edits a waste of time. I will try to make sure "major revisions" are not marked as "minor" anymore. I was planning to, maybe soon, work on trying to add more to these stubs of pages, or something else entirely. The warning has been served and that's it.Wikiedebs (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Darkness Shines: edit-warring, incivility and personal attacks at Cambodian genocide[edit]

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) has really gone overboard in the last day or so. I don't even remember what the content of my edits was that got caught in his back-to-2015 (!) mass-revert, so I consider myself basically neutral on the content. But edit summaries like "As before, and this section is bollocks", "fuck me, ever more shite", "Who the fuck cites Rummel", "Shite sources and off topuc bollocks" and "How about, your a prick, how about an article in a fucking genocide is, I dunno focused on that, how about fuck off." are clearly way out of line, and some of the others (like this) are completely incoherent. These edit summaries appear to be in violation of his 2015 unblock conditions here (particularly point 3).

He also broke 3RR by reverting four times in just over two hours.[145][146][147][148] (It may also run afoul of 1RR, since his block log mentions it but this was never apparently logged at WP:RESTRICT so I can't tell if it was appealed. I apologize if I am mistaken.)

Most disheartening, though, is the fact that according to the log this is coming one month after his last block, two months after he was blocked for "Edit warring, incivility, and badgering other editors", edit-warring a month before that, edit-warring two months before that, and four months before that given WP:ROPE following an indef block appeal.[149]

I honestly don't want this to go where it looks likely to go, since I actually agree that the article before his revert was pretty bad, but this really needs the community's attention.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW: I know the page was protected per my request at RFPP so the content dispute is "over" as far as that goes. But that was before I noticed his block log and unblock restrictions. If I thought this was a workable content dispute I wouldn't have come to ANI to begin with. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment My recommendation at RFPP was to step back, calm down, and recenter. Not surprised to see this post here. The edit summaries were appalling. There is discussion on the article talk, but it appears at an impasse. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. FWIW, if DS logs in and does a complete about-face and follows Dlohcierekim's advice, my above report can probably be considered withdrawn. I do think civility restrictions need strict enforcement the same as every other editing restriction, but I'm also not into wikilawyering over such things. More eyes on the dispute (whatever it is even about at this point; I've lost track) can't but be a good thing, mind you. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This attempt at collaboration [150] was met with this response[151]. "I don't care what others think" seems to sum up all the mass reverts and deletions on the page. Hijiri 88 did the right thing bringing this here, and I don't see how/why even an about-face would justify the withdrawing of this report. Grandpallama (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
We are going to continue to be here, every other week, it seems.--Jorm (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This is clearly a one-sided dispute from a single editor who came out of the gates with all barrels firing. Not only has Darkness Shines approached the "discussion" without the slightest hint of good faith, they've made it explicit they don't feel they have to explain themselves. This is despite so many of the reverts being problematic—some disputed (Pol Pot's death described as suicide), some straight up gibberish ("perpetrator guanoator"???). Can anyone give a coherent rationale for action not being taken against this behaviour (which appears to be par for the course given DS's block log). There's seriously no chance this person will begin to engage in GF discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Unpleasant Proposal Time[edit]

Yuck. Ugh. - This is an even longer block log than for the two principal subject editors currently before the ArbCom. What we have here is an editor whose objective is to improve the encyclopedia, but who is unable, no matter how many times around, to edit collaboratively. It doesn't matter whether we call it not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia or being incompetent at working as part of a team or what. Unfortunately, I can't be optimistic enough to support the usual indefinite block with the understanding that indefinite is not infinite, because history shows that the editor will ask one more time for a standard offer or get tangled up in 20 feet of rope. I think that we have to impose either a site ban or an indefinite block with the condition that only the community can lift the block. If the community doesn't want to do this, then the case will go to the ArbCom, which will probably decline it, and accept it on second filing in the northern summer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support an Indefinite Block, to be lifted only by the community, or a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support site or community ban. I do not believe DS is here to operate in good faith, and have not believed so for quite some time.--Jorm (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support either an indef with community approval needed to lift, or an outright site ban. The block log and edit summaries indicate a hopeless case. The community needs to make it clear that this behavior will not be tolerated. Jusdafax (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef block with condition - We are here for something DS has said or done every few weeks and it is getting stale repeating the same ol' story. As I said last time, the community did its best but some editors simply do not take a hint. Fair warning: DS discussed creating another account during his last go-around; I would be wary of a scheme to evade scrutiny.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Wait what? If that is the case I may have to strike my soft oppose below, you got diffs handy? Gabriel syme (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Gabriel syme, in this edit summary, DS made his intentions quite apparent. That was last time, and, considering he has once again placed himself in a similar predicament, I felt it was worth mentioning the possibility of using another account to evade a site ban. Can not say I agree with you calling him "prolific" below when the only thing he is "prolific" for is net-negative contributions and an inability to communicate with others.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support CBAN - This will be their third indefinite block, so I prefer to impose a community ban at this juncture. They received an indef block in November, 2014 for abusing multiple accounts. This block was lifted in March, 2015 – about five months later. Their second indefinite block came on 27 May, 2015 per an arbitration enforcement of a TBAN. This block was lifted mid-September 2017 – after 2 + 1/3 years, and only 5 months ago. This is a clear and recurring problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support CBAN might as well formalize it. The blocks haven't worked, and an "indef with community approval needed" might as well be a site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support siteban. Per above. I don't remember the last time I encountered DS, just that it was unpleasant, and over the years I've seen quite a lot of unpleasantness coming from that account.
    Per TonyBallioni, "indef with community approval needed" either means siteban or is meaningless (since there'd be community approval in a SO situation, or the Committee would just take jurisdiction entirely). As I've said in many discussions recently, we have a problem where AN/ANI try to come up with "gotcha" scenarios to prevent blocks issued today from being lifted in six months. While "with community approval needed" doesn't nearly approach the level of silliness I've seen recently (in one case, I believe an indef, along with an indef topic ban that only kicks in if the block is lifted), I believe we should avoid putting into place novel procedural hurdles geared towards giving indefinite sanctions more permanence. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support site ban. I don't see how a topic ban would work. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support CBAN. How much evidence does we need to finally decide an editor is not acting in good faith? Gamaliel (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support site-ban (reluctantly) <sigh> I'm pretty sure I've had positive interactions with DS at some point in the past, and I personally really hate seeing a content creator get banned because they violated CIVIL, but them's the rules, and unfortunately DS has run afoul of them one too many times at this point, so I really don't see any hope for another final last chance. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft oppose I hear all of the above but I've run into conflicts with DS before, and while I agree they can often be difficult to deal with, I would hate to lose such an editor who is prolific on such important topics as they generally edit. That being said perhaps sanctions are in order, I'm new at this. I definitely get the exhaustion of the community with 'one last chance'. Gabriel syme (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support site-ban; per rnndude and jusdafax. We shouldn't tolerate such behaviour, even if the editor does contribute. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support site ban, obviously. This should have been done years ago. And let's not pretend this is some kind of valuable content contributor whose only issue is a foul temper. The core problem about DS has always been that his content contributions are uniformly bad, and that he lacks the competence to engage in any meaningful discussion about them. He's always been a net negative to the project. After how many (two? three?) indef blocks, dozens of blocks for edit-warring, at least three topic bans, and uncounted "civility restrictions" and "revert paroles" (all of which were broken), it's time to close the door for good. Fut.Perf. 07:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support site-ban per above. We should not tolerate this kind of behaviour. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support enough is enough. His block log is a mile long, the C.W.Gilmore feud was ridiculous, and when DS finally edits somewhere outside of American politics, his behavior is somehow worse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't oppose a "standard offer" compatable ban; aka an indef block with appeal to WP:AN after 6 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I tried to do this in early January, but did it while he was blocked and mucked it up real time. But yes, block log longer than the A1, and as Jorm said above, we'll be here every week if DS gets involved in some sort of content dispute. He has self-stated his lack of patience for others. !dave 08:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support- this editor has clearly become unmanageable. Reyk YO! 09:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per my earlier observation that "I don't care what others think" shows a mentality that is fundamentally opposed to collaboration. Add into that the constant feuding at ANI, the nature of the edits, the 1001 second chances, and it feels like yet another example of too much past patience. Grandpallama (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support site ban. The genocide Talk page discussion was really something -- but not surprising. I've observed the same at another page, which lead to several ANI threads, one of which I started myself: NPA, unblock conditions. Coming from an indef block, this latest development, plus many others, demonstrate a surprising lack of a learning curve. The user's contributions, unfortunately, have not been a net positive to the project, and a site ban is an appropriate remedy in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is a problem, and there is a history of problems but there is also a history of worthwhile content in the past. I might consider an indef block, but a cban seems to be WP:POINTy. A ban does virtually nothing that an indef block doesn't do and there isn't any convincing argument presented that says an indef block is insufficient and only a ban will do. The behavior is inexcusable, I agree, which is wny an indef block is needed. We often rush to ban something thinking that is going to do more than a block will do. It won't. A community indef block can only be overturned by the community, not a single admin, so that is the right path. A ban is simply overkill as (again) no evidence is presented to show a ban will be more effective than a community indef block. Dennis Brown - 01:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: I'm not actually that familiar with DS's history beyond a scan of his block log and a (brief) search for any relevant sanctions or unblock conditions he miht already be subject to, but wouldn't the two previous indef blocks that were repealed be evidence that enough ROPE has been given in this case? Were the previous appeals brought to the community with consensus to unblock or something? In the past I've been indeffed, and unblocked based on an off-wiki appeal to a debateably "involved" admin, and I don't think I should be site-banned because my previous indef block wasn't enough, so I'm definitely open to the idea. I don't think "community indef block" is a thing (I vaguely recall something like that being brought up at the village pump a few months ago), or how it would be different from a site-ban if it were.
On a related point, the original proposal was for either a site-ban or an indef block, so wouldn't your !vote technically be to oppose the former but rather support the latter?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Of course the community can impose an indef block, and no single admin may reverse it, only a community decision can. This is common. And I have faith whoever closes this can sort it out. Dennis Brown - 12:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: Are you sure? A bunch of the "support" !votes before the initial close amounted to "An indefinite block that must be appealed to the community is the same as a site ban", and in my experience this is pretty consistent with standard practice. I found the "village pump" discussion anyway, which was actually two related discussions here and here; the resulting change to the policy wording stated that unblocks should not be made unilaterally when the block was the implementation of "a community sanction", but did not clarify that "indefinite blocks" that are the result of community consensus (as opposed to explicitly worded "bans") are meant to be treated as implementation of a community sanction, as such. User:Jytdog also gave a helpful list of relevant examples of blocks that had been community-imposed but were not necessarily treated as community sanctions for unblock purposes; Jytdog did go on close that discussion, apparently satisfied that the relevant changes had been made, but several of the other "oppose" !votes further down this thread clearly see "a standard block, appealable in the normal way" as being different from what is being proposed, and several of the "support" !votes are saying that there is no difference between a "community block" and a site ban. I honestly don't mind that much, and if a community block is what you say it is (maybe I am just misinterpreting the fine print on the policy changes last May, and the other commenters are just unaware of the still-fairly-recent changes) then I really couldn't care less what wording we use. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure and familiar with the distinction. Dennis Brown - 15:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ban. I'm one of the many people Darkness Shines has verbally abused. No, this behaviour is not okay. In a workplace, he would have been fired a long time ago, and a volunteer project should have higher standards for behaviour than a workplace because people don't get paid to stick around. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a ban, for all the reasons above. Sadly, DS is simply not able to get along. But yes, let's let this run its course, in fairness to someone who has, after all, put in non-trivial work. Guy (Help!) 01:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I won't have time to formulate anything properly but I do ask the closer to consider ignoring FPaS and (for a different reason) anyone associated with the gender bias stuff - Jorm, Gamaliel, Peter the Fourth etc. I've no idea what the problem is between FPaS and DS but it has gone on for a while. As for the rest, there is a significant history of pile-on enmity etc with those people and I've had enough of it and the walled garden they are protecting. They are among the most incivil people I have come across, despite probably never writing "one of those words". DS speaks his mind and, without doubt, has crossed the line at times but this war of attrition by pov-pushing cabals needs to stop and DS has been particularly effective at times in cutting through that. Cool story, bro, as Jorm would say. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    Cool story, bro --Jorm (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush: Does any of your above comment apply to me (the editor who filed this ANI report), User:Robert McClenon (the editor who made the unpleasant proposal in question), or anyone involved in the most recent incident at the Cambodian genocide article? Asking a closer to ignore !votes from users A, B, C, D, "etc." is very unusual, as it looks like you are trying to make the closer jumo through as many hoops as possible before closing it the way virtually everyone says it should. I am pretty sure I have commented on "gender bias stuff" in the past, but I had no idea that could have anything to do with this question; I made some copy-edits to a random article I was reading, and some time later was pinged on the talk page, noticed a massive barrage of cursing in edit summaries, and once I noticed the editor's block log and WP:RESTRICT entry decided to bring it to ANI. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have no idea whether the weird exclusions apply to me. I will note that I did think that the discussion was closed very quickly (although I agreed with the result), and will note that I don't care whether it is called an indefinite block by the community or a ban by the community. I will note that I think that editors who want DS given one more chance are more optimistic than I am. I will note that I don't give a damn about the use of dirty words, or, more accurately, I may give only one or two damns about them, but don't think anyone should be blocked, let alone banned, for the mere use of particular words. I will also say that I don't think that there is anything "robust" or "tough" about the use of bad language, because anything that can be said with bad language can be said equally effectively with clean language, unless the objective is to make a point, as I just did above. However, anyone with a block log as long as DS can reasonably be concluded to be a net negative to the encyclopedia. The ArbCom is likely to ban two editors as net negatives who have shorter block logs than DS. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Given this finding, I'm thinking that Sitush is among the LAST people who should be doling out advice on how to treat the opinions of his ideological opponents. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as personally I think it's overkill, I do however support a8 2 month block from this place with TP access revoked - DS quite honestly needs to take some time away to seriously think about his attitude here and the way he goes about things ..... DS is here for all the right reasons he just seems to go about things the wrong way (in some ways like myself), Oppose CBAN but Support 8 2 month block. –Davey2010Talk 02:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose community ban. But I will support a block of 1-3 months as a last chance wake up call that this behavior will not be tolerated by the community. Improving the encyclopedia comes first, but patience wears thin. Finally a suggestion that discussion for banning a long term contributor should run longer then 11 hours. . Mr Ernie (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I've since amended my comment as 8 months with TPA revoked is overkill too!. –Davey2010Talk 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Davey2010: @Mr Ernie: If DS hadn't (fairly recently) come off an indef block that was in place for two years, I would be inclined to agree with you, but hasn't he been given enough time to cool off already? How does stepping down to a lighter sanction than last time change things? As for improving the encyclopedia coming first: hell yes! But that is unfortunately never how Wikipedia has operated. My original longer response to NeilN below included a statement that I wish these weren't foregone conclusions on principle. I hate that WP:CIVIL is essentially the only policy that matters and how civil POV-pushers can deliberately bait content creators into losing their cool, but the content creators have to just have more cool than that. That's always how it has worked. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
These are good points. Frankly I’m just not sure the best way forward here. I feel that DS has really made significant improvements to the project, but at some cost to civility. I’m not sure how to quantify which one is more important. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose DS uses one of the harsher sexually derived words more than I think is appropriate, but we generally don’t CBAN people just for swearing. In this diff, he called another editor a “prick” and used a vulgarity to ask them to leave. I don’t see anything harsher the recent edit summaries. Perhaps we should impose a ban on DS using vulgar terms in edit summaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talkcontribs) 05:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am always civil and don't enjoy profanity, but oppose a siteban for an editor with good contributions and intentions, in this case free an article from unsourced content! Compare the civility arb case and let's not measure differently. Better work on said article, all of us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose CBAN, on both procedural grounds and per the specific allegations raised against DS in this thread. On procedure, I am too often taken aback with the unwarranted haste that has nearly become the norm with sanctions placed pursuant discussions on this noticeboard, and its parent as well. Such haste mocks the value of community input, accentuating an involved perspective while nearly quashing the unbiased voice that clearly would take a bit longer to informatively opine. Regarding specific allegations, while I can not condone DS's conduct, I do not see it as having risen above conduct ably handled with escalating blocks and with his most recent blocks having escalated to 2 weeks, I think Davey2010's suggestion of 8 months is an excessive escalation; 4 weeks would seem adequate in my opinion. In closing, having said my piece regarding DS, I can not, in good faith, chastise DS for his behavior without cautioning Curly Turkey for provocative commentary in edit summary, seemingly unprovoked, and far more egregious than the examples presented against DS[152]. If civility is a pillar the community has decided to enforce, I am certain that your own incivility could not be excused.--John Cline (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed an 8 month block with TPA revoked is rather excessive so I've since changed to 2 months, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 14:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • John Cline: "far more egregious"? One editor was disrupting article space, editwarring, and flat-out attacking literally everyone who tried to engage with him in any way whatsoever. But a guy who said "fuck" in an edit summary in reaction to all this was "far more egregious"? A WP:POINT-y oppose if I've ever seen one.
    DS is drawing fire not for their language, but for their egregious and ceaseless disruptive behaviour. You're saying turn a blind eye because someone said "fuck"? Well, then, you'd better start talking about DS's language---they got in an awful lot of naughty words before I got there, so you'll have to 'splain why you've singled me out. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    To clarify, I did not mean to suggest that you (the person) nor the manner of your conduct, was far more egregious. I meant only to compare the incivility in your edit summary with the incivility in the linked examples given against DS. To further clarify, my comparison did not depend on tallying "naughty words" or measuring their fit in a garden variety potty-mouth. My sole rule for discriminating the commentary was in measuring the attack value and personalized nature of the text itself. As such, I concluded that your telling DS to "keep [his] jizzy mitts off the motherfucking article" to be the intentional poking of an already agitated Wikipedian with a high likelihood of eliciting a negative response from DS which could only serve to increase the chances that he would ultimately be banned by the community, the outcome you prefer. If I had not wished to convey a few points in !voting on this ban proposal, I would not have !voted at all. Your insinuation, however, that I disrupted Wikipedia in doing so seems a bit baseless to me while the befuddlement you express in suggesting that I advocate turning a blind eye because of your commentary seems a bit feigned considering I neither said or implied any such thing. As far as my singling your edit summary out from the others, I frankly did not see another example where the pot appeared to be calling the kettle black.--John Cline (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    John Cline: "poking of an already agitated Wikipedian": If you've read the talk page, you know he came out the gates agitated with no provocation, and that numerous editors have been trying to reason with him. Have you examined the evidence before !voting?
    "the outcome you prefer"---how the fuck would you know what outcome I prefere? I haven't !voted.
    "where the pot appeared to be calling the kettle black"---this is gibberish. DS has disrupted article space and refuses to engage in discussion about it. There's only one "kettle" here, unless you're suggesting someone else in the discussion has disrupted article space and refused to engage in discussion about it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Dennis, a siteban is overkill and completely unnecessary. Per Sitush, I won't support anything that sends any sort of signal to "civil" POV pushers that their tactics are acceptable or successful. Block DS temporarily, if we determine we must, as a standard block, appealable in the normal way, but this is way too far for an editor who has contributed so much. I'm disappointed with some of the editors of whom I thought better who have jumped on this bandwagon, and I'm sorry I felt the need to say that - but there it is. -- Begoon 06:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Begoon: I won't support anything that sends any sort of signal to "civil" POV pushers that their tactics are acceptable or successful What "tactics"? Civil POV pushers? Are you talking about me and Robert McClenon? That's pretty funny, given my history. I asked Sitush this same question above, and they have yet to get back to me -- saying you agree with a statement that they have been challenged on and not defended is not the best idea, surely? Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No Hijiri, I'm not talking about you or Robert. I also don't appreciate being badgered or your "advice" on what's "the best idea", so see my reply below and please don't ping me to this discussion again. Thanks. -- Begoon 14:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think I have fallen out during contributions with User:Darkness shines but imo a siteban is overkill and completely unnecessary, he has a degree of content improvement contributions and is not a valueless User, a ban from American politics and any related articles would be a better outcome. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Query - How, again, is it "overkill" to cban an editor who has been indefinitely blocked twice and has a block log longer than a grocery shopping list? Is a lesser block (or, ridiculously, nothing at all) going to magically make DS see the light when all else has failed? Or are we supposed to turn a blind eye to a recurring problem because to some editors DS is a buddy and is excused by occasionally good content?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not going to !vote, but comment that nobody should be blocked or banned for their language. DS's offenses are strictly disruptive behaviour—editwarring, refusing to engage with any and all comers to the talk page, refusal to explain the reverts, and repeatedly reverting to disputed and even gibberish content. Nothing anyone said on the talk page provoked "Feck off bud, if anything's worth saving, I'll save it" and "Sorry, I don't care what others think". Something needs to be done about this behaviour. Your job, ANI, is to work it the fuck out so that Wikipedia can function, not to hand out paddywhacks to pottymouths. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can only offer a tentative view based on my occasional running across of DS and his edits, but my impression has always been that he contributes useful content in potentially contentious topic areas. Wikipedia has a massive and largely ignored problem of being unable to effectively combat agenda-driven editing, meaning that good faith editors who eventually lose patience end up being the ones sanctioned for incivility while the civil POV-pushers sail blithely on, often for years, without sanction. I did propose a while back that for editors who are widely viewed as useful contributors but who struggle at times to maintain civility, we should consider suspending the usual escalating block regime and simply impose shortish but substantial blocks, of say a week or so, for infractions, which may well be all that is required to get such editors to modify their behaviour. Having said that, I have the impression judging by some recent comments that DS is fed up and could perhaps use a more prolonged break to get his act together. Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely correct. I'd go so far as to say that this failure to address "civil" POV-pushing, while instead punishing good-faith users who are worn down by it, or standing by while such users become disillusioned and walk away, is the biggest problem wikipedia has when it comes to maintaining balanced content. -- Begoon 11:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    Gatoclass, Begoon: why are you guys talking about his language? Nobody gives two shits about his language—this whole discussion would not have been opened if it were about his language. The issue is his editwarring, restoring broken content, refusal to discuss, WP:OWN, etc. etc. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Erm, I haven't mentioned his language, so I'm struggling to answer that question. Perhaps my agreeing with Gato who used the term 'civility' is what you mean? I see it as a wider issue. If you read my posts again you'll see that what I have said is that I disagree with a siteban as unnecessary and that I feel good-faith users are often worn down by "civil" POV pushing and then punished when their behaviour deteriorates as a consequence, while the "civil" POV pushers go unscathed. Obviously you and I disagree on the appropriate course of action here, and I understand your position, while not sharing it. Cheers. -- Begoon 12:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Begoon: What does this failure to address "civil" POV-pushing, while instead punishing good-faith users who are worn down by it mean if not a cutting down of all the non-cursing disruption? There are no civil POV pushers in the recent Cambodian genocide case, and DS was not "worn down"; the article talk page hadn't been edited in four months and the article itself was fairly stable until DS instigated that whole mess. Making this into a "good content contributor who was worn down by civil POV pushers" issue dismisses the fact that DS has been explicitly violating sanctions that, if he thought they were unfair or were the result of civil POV pushers deliberately wearing him down and "sail[ing] blithely on, often for years, without sanction" (a description you called "absolutely correct"), he should have appealed them. Seriously, I mentioned in my first comment up above that I wasn't sure if DS had successfully appealed his 1RR restriction, and no one has told me "No, he did; see this diff/permalink." Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
But Hijiri, you're cross-examining me as though I have said nothing should be done... I haven't said that, and I'll repeat two things I said to CT above: First, read what I have actually said - I have opposed a site-ban, and said that if we determine a block is necessary it should be a standard block. Second, obviously you and I disagree on the appropriate course of action here, and I understand your position, while not sharing it. Now I know you could continue this back and forth all day, I've seen it Face-smile.svg, but I can see the audience's eyes glazing over already, so I'll leave it there. Reasonable people do sometimes differ. -- Begoon 14:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, I was responding to the initial post in this thread which was focused on incivility. But regardless, it doesn't change my point that good-faith users disheartened by problematic editing that the community seems powerless to address will sometimes lose patience and begin to respond inappropriately, whether that be through incivility or other breaches of policy. I fully endorse Begoon's view above that agenda-driven editing is the most serious problem facing Wikipedia, and until we find a way to address that effectively, we are going to continue to shed quality editors while the POV-pushers who drive them away continue to thrive. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Begoon, Gatoclass: So, the both of you are convinced this is a case of civil POV-pushing? Could you tell us what POV is supposedly being pushed? Have either of you actually read Talk:Cambodian genocide#Massive revert by Darkness Shines? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I take an issues with the statement that good faith editors who eventually lose patience end up being the ones sanctioned for incivility while the civil POV-pushers sail blithely on, often for years, without sanction, as it suggests that people who voted "support" are non-content contributing "POV pushers", whiners, and complainers. How can you be so sure? Also eventually is pretty rich in this context, since disruption, frivolous 3RRN threads, and uncivility are the hallmarks of this particular editor. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, Curly Turkey, I am not for a moment trying to suggest that people who !voted support here are "POV-pushers" (though perhaps some of them might be) and indeed I agree that DS's conduct at the article in question, especially some of the comments he made on the talk page, are unacceptable. And I would think that the majority of people who have !voted support here have done so in good faith and with the best of intentions. Nor am I criticizing the users who interacted with DS at the Cambodia page. All I have tried to say here is that I've seen DS adding useful content in some pretty difficult topic areas, and I think he has burnout and that perhaps an enforced break would be better than a CBAN. My apologies if my previous comments indicated otherwise. Gatoclass (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I do not care about DS's use of profanities or personal attacks. What concerns me is the total lack of cooperative spirit. I tried cooperate, and was heartened when DS did what I asked and immediately sought to encourage him/her (although I felt DS was editing too rapidly). The history of bans makes clear this is not a one-off thing. I also encountered DS one time before this, and was angered that DS mercilessly stroke down a constructive contribution by an IP, and was awarded for his/her behaviour. I felt bad for the IP, who probably got a bad impression of Wikipedia. If we want Wikipedia to continue to improve, then we need new blood and cooperative behaviour. This is the "'cultural' shite" I was talking about. I unfortunately think DS's manbabyism is beyond hope. Uglemat (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose site ban. The trail of incoherent and ugly edit summaries presented deserve a response but a community ban is not the appropriate one. A block for a lengthy period of time, say three months, should bring DS to their senses, at least for a while. The reality is that DS is a good content editor who tends to go off the rails on occasion. If we can use a judicious combination of blocks to retain the constructive parts of their work, then we should do just that. Wikipedia's problems come less from the editors who can't quite control their language but do adhere to sources, balance, and npov, and more from the editors who politely push their agendas. If we keep throwing out the former, we're losing the battle. --regentspark (comment) 14:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support DS was already indef blocked for about 2 years and unblocked less than a year ago. In such cases, when a user is unblocked after a long time of being blocked, it is often said by participants in the unblock discussion that it will be easy to reinstate the block if the editor becomes disruptive again. Apparently that's not true if you have enough friends. Lepricavark (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    Blocking an editor for disruptive behavior is easy enough to achieve and I doubt you'd have seen much opposition if a standard block of escalating magnitude had been sought instead. Seeking a site ban or an equivalent community imposed indefinite block is quite another matter, however. I am personally not here as a friend of DS at all but as an enemy of hasty bans where standard technical blocks are more than sufficient. If you read the opposition, I believe you will see that others are essentially saying the same thing.--John Cline (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    It is at this juncture far too late for any indef block of DS to be hasty. Lepricavark (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose site ban. As per RegentsPark. We can't lose sight of the enormous contribution that DS has made to the project and likely to make again. Siteban is an overkill. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support; we've given this user more than enough chances to fix their behavior, but they clearly haven't. I'm convinced that a temporary block with escalating blocks afterwards will achieve nothing; just look at their block log. He clearly got the message, many times I may add, but still continues to do the things we tell him not to do. An indefinite block with community approval to unblock, which may as well be a siteban, should be the only way forward. SkyWarrior 19:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment A number of editors on both sides of this discussion appear to be unaware of a relevant change to policy from last May. The "supports" are largely pro-SBAN/CBAN per the understanding that a "community indefinite block" is the same as a site ban, but if this were the case then the policy that a community unblock cannot be undone without community assent would be redundant with the concept of a site ban (which is what a number of the "supports" have said); the "opposes" seem to largely think a "site ban" is going too far and a "regular indefinite block" that is "appealable in the standard fashion" would be enough, but if an indefinite block is imposed by community consensus it already is not appealable in the standard fashion. Dennis Brown and I appear to be the only ones who have noticed the problem here (one of the "opposes" actually said "per Dennis" and then went on to say the opposite of what Dennis said in light of the "community block" concept), and even we don't agree since he still recognizes more than a cosmetic difference between a community block and a ban while I do not. I don't know how this problem could be addressed, but I don't envy the closer's job -- I considered pinging everyone who had !voted so far, drawing their attention to the 2017/05 discussion and asking if they were aware of the distinction (for the supports) or lack thereof (for the opposes) between a community block and a ban, but that feels a little BLUDGEON-y. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The policy change to WP:CBAN you're referring to says, in pertinent part, Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". If an indef is imposed after due consideration by the community, it's a CBAN. Again, Editors who are . . . indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". I'm really not sure how you can distinguish the two when the outcome of a community-imposed indef. is defined as a CBAN. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In practice, there is no difference between a community-imposed indefinite block where no specific conditions have been set for unblocking, and a community-imposed ban, as both must be appealed to the community. It would be odd that an administrator-imposed indefinite block that was reviewed by the community is considered to be a defacto community ban, and yet the analogous scenario where the community imposed the block is not. Accordingly, in the interest of allowing the discussion in May to reach a compromise solution, the change to extend the description of an "editing restriction" to include a community indefinite block was not objected to. Nonetheless it does not effectively change existing practice. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as a net negative. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Little fast there[edit]

Community ban decided in 11 hours? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It was unanimous, and though there weren't that many !votes, those that were made cover a wide swathe of editor demographics. There's no reasonable cause to think that letting it run longer would change the consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: To be fair, it wasn't quite unanimous. One fairly new account who admitted to this in their !vote issued a "weak oppose". Hijiri 88 (やや) 20:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, look at that. It kinda got buried in the avalanche I guess. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
If a consensus develops here that it wasn't open long enough, we can re-open it to see if the vote swings a different way. It's now been an additional 8-9 hours or so, and no one has yet shown up to say they intended to vote any differently than had been expressed above. Comments are always welcome... --Jayron32 19:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll just point out that I was sleeping entirely, with the exception of responding to a talk page ping, when the discussion was open.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It is fast; but unless somebody wants to oppose it there's no need to re-open it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned because the people who were involved in quite a few cases have a very pre-determined opinion of DS, often going back years, usually due to their perception of civility which, it must be said, is often very different from the UK etc perception. I don't see a "wide swathe" of editor demographics but rather a narrow selection. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I am a British editor and I found his behaviour unacceptable. !dave 20:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I know you are and that you did. One swallow does not a summer make. There are people who cannot handle robust commentary everywhere but there is a tendency on Wikipedia to find them more based in the US than in the UK or Australia and so on. It's something to do with wanting to be the morality police and yet the bollocks they spout about how, for example, it doesn't happen in the workplace is just that, bollocks. No community ban should be enforced on such a short hearing. Alas, I am unlikely to be around this weekend if the discussion is re-opened so there isn't much point in me asking for that. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please note that (i) I opened the thread, (ii) I'm Irish, (iii) the Irish (particularly people hailing from Dublin north of the Liffey, which is where I am from) are well-known for their vulgarity relative to the British, supposedly going back to when we first adopted English and determined that this savage foreign language with a poetic tradition far inferior to our own was only useful for cursing, and (iv) I agreed with the site-ban proposal (even hinting at it in my opening comment -- "to go where it looks likely to go") based on the right-out-the-door incivility. That said, I agree with SarekOfVulcan that this was rather fast. The previous proposal was shot down because DS was already temporarily blocked and unable to defend himself, and closing the discussion in barely longer than the amount of time most people sleep in a single night seems to go against the spirit of fairness that prevented that from happening last time. I don't see it going anywhere different even if it remained open for a week, but that's how the procedure should go. Hijiri 88 (やや) 20:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) These typically take 24 hours, and are closed shortly after. There has been a trend of late to close ones that are snowing early, and while I don't personally like it and don't think it should be done, I also don't see the point of reopening a discussion when no one seems to have objected to the actual ban (unless you do, Sitush, in which case, I think there is a case to be made for allowing it to be open for an additional 24 hours.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm having a bit of trouble swallowing the requisite assumption that the British (or even Irish) are more lax about civility than Americans. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I was only really talking about the cursing, not incivility in general. Certainly most of the fouler words I quoted at the top of this thread are words that an American probably wouldn't use even if he would use even worse ones, as they're Anglo-Irish slang (arse, feck, etc.). And I'll go to my grave believing the British borrowed "feck" from us, since the Irish word for "to see" is "feic" (pronounced the same) and I'm pretty sure the early modern Irish just adopted their word for "to see" as a euphemism for English "fuck". Hijiri 88 (やや) 20:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I was actually responding to Sitush. It was their comment that contained the "requisite assumption" I mentioned. On the frequency of the use of curse words, it's possible that America might be behind Ireland, but in terms of general incivility, welll... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I know that the use of robust language is common in the US but it is US-based contributors to this project who tend to bang the drum, at least in my experience. Some of them are in the discussion above and at least one of them should themselves have been sanctioned years ago even though to the best of my knowledge they have never resorted to such terms. Wikipedia isn't a workplace, where we are paid and told what to do, but rather a big city with 5 million houses, many derelict, and a small population. There are plenty of byways and houses etc that people can frequent if they do not care for something. - Sitush (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush: Hold on there; comments like at least one of them should themselves have been sanctioned years ago are pretty questionable, especially when made at ANI rather than, say, DS's user talk page, and if you are going to criticize someone like that you should at least name names. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In general I think having a discussion which bans a long term and prolific editor close in short time is bad form. Why not open it back up and let it run for another 24 hrs? I seriously doubt that the outcome will change but it will avoid the drama and bad feelings that are bound to come up when this is discussed in the future. -- Prolong it now to shorten the pain later. Jbh Talk 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Jbhunley hit the nail on the head here. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I actually have serious doubts as to whether prolonging the discussion will help. I've taken that exact position in the past, and each time I've seen that the extra time didn't actually assuage any hurt feelings or drama. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I don't doubt it. This is just a procedural matter. Honestly, if I was DS I would probably want this matter to be over with as soon as possible one way or the other. But clearly (look at his talk page) he has a lot of friends who wanted to voice their opinions, and they are not getting banned, so not leaving them feeling shafted by a procedurally questionable prematurely closed SBAN discussion should be priority 1 as far as I am concerned. (And yes, I am aware that anyone reading this might see my third sentence as a passive-aggressive "Y'know, you wouldn't be doing him any favours...". But that's really not how I roll these days. If I don't express my honest opinion -- that another 24 hours won't change anything and that it'd only be more drama -- people might tell me I was "wrong" later, when in fact in my gut I was actually right.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There's enough concern about this outcome that I support re-opening the discussion. We may need stronger language around the "at least 24 hours" part in WP:CBAN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Let it run longer. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this sorta thing for AN not AN/I? Arkon (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Arkon: I've seen a lot of people say that, and the interwiki links on this page seem to support that assertion, but in reality I don't think the distinction (ANI for blocks, AN for bans) has ever been strictly enforced. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Jayron32, would you mind undoing your close and transferring the text of the proposal/!votes to AN, as people have objected to it being here too. There seems to be an emerging consensus to let it run for another 24 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For whatever it's worth, I'm personally pretty uncomfortable with CBAN discussions being quickly closed, even recent ones which I myself have supported... to the point where I would support a policy amendment to set something like a three day minimum for such a proposal to get community input. We certainly should not be closing a discussion in the time when half of the world is still asleep, and hasn't really had the chance to wake up yet. GMGtalk 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Since Jayron32 said he would not object to re-opening if there appears to be a consensus to re-open, I've gone ahead and did it for him.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's cool. I have no problem letting this run longer as needed. It's clear that people have more to say about. No harm there. --Jayron32 03:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support letting this run longer. I don't think it will require a full 30 days, but definitely at least until, say, midweek. Give the weekenders time to come in and see this, plus people who primarily edit during work hours a bit more time to come in during the week. I really think this, among other issues, is yet another thing that needs to be addressed when and if we (as a community) handle comprehensive banning policy reform as I've advocated in several cases recently. We need to stop doing patchwork fixes and leaving the fundamental problems with how we handle these discussions unaddressed. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    • 30 days is not the standard for a ban discussion. 24 hours is. I'd be open to leaving it longer open if there was substantial opposition, but if not, it should probably be closed around the 24 hour mark. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Tony here. But should clarify that it's 24 hours after reopening -- 00:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC) -- as 24 hours total time being open is super-messy. Per my above comments (and I think probably the opinions of everyone here) I can't see the consensus changing much either way. Sitush's comment above that they would be busy this weekend is a little concerning, but one editor couldn't overrule that no matter how many days they had, even if that was what they intended to try. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, agreed on the clarification point. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Not busy, just won't have access. I have a DHCP server failure and am running out of data allowance on mobile. I have mentioned this elsewhere this week, eg: on my talk page. Waiting for a new device. My objection is primarily regarding the summary closure - I've not even really delved into the diffs etc because I am very close to my limit now having spent far too much time buggering about with a BLP that should have been fully protected when it went to AfD, imo. - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
24 hours is considered the barest minimum for a ban discussion. It's not the standard. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This crops up time and time again. Can someone please explain why there's a rush to close banning discussions? If the editor is currently being disruptive that can be solved with a block. Otherwise it saves a lot of time and discussion when the editor or someone else complains that not all interested community members had a chance to comment. I'd really like a modification to WP:CBAN stating discussions must be left open for at least 24 hours (I'd like 48 but I'll take what I can get). --NeilN talk to me 01:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Per my above reply to MPants (and some stuff in DS's comments on his talk page since this thread was opened), the longer the discussion stays open, the better for the ban recipients' "friends" who are not directly affected, but in near-unanimous cases like this (which are probably the only ones that get shut after the minimum wait time), after a certain point (and I think we had already reached that point even before Jayron's initial close) it becomes just a matter of more and more people piling on to badmouth the editor who might as well already be blocked, which is overkill, and borders on GRAVEDANCE when the editor in question has made it fairly clear they are not going to defend themselves on ANI. I agree that the discussion should be left open as a procedural matter, but I don't think increasing the minimum wait time to 48 hours in cases like this would do much good. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: And the shorter the discussion stays open, the better for opponents of the editor to steamroll through a sanction. All sides - opponents, supporters, uninvolved (who usually take longer to comment) - should get at least the chance to be heard. Again, this helps to prevent discussions like this from having to be held. --NeilN talk to me 02:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You're right, and I would probably support you from a procedural standpoint if you made that proposal. I just think that in cases that seem like foregone conclusions, all leaving it open does is allow the "Yeah, ban 'em" comments to keep piling up. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep. Everything NeilN has said. This is part of why I believe we need comprehensive banning policy reform. Perhaps, once a discussion has hit 24 hours we should make a preliminary assessment of the consensus, and perhaps preliminarily block, but there absolutely shouldn't be a final, binding closure until the discussion has been open long enough for folks with lives outside Wikipedia, tech problems, and other issues to get their statements under consideration. Otherwise, we're gonna be finding ourselves in progressively more frustrating situations where we either foreclose discussion as coming too late (despite WP:NOTBURO), or keep allowing the discussion to be reopened to accommodate more comments. There are so many other problems with banning discussions though. We really need to fix this problem. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
User:NeilN - Feel free to propose it with all the fanfare of a central RfC. I'd support, and it'd probably be more well received coming from you rather than me anyway. GMGtalk 02:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • +1 - Agree with Neil the discussion shouldn't of been closed so quickly and I too would support some sort of change to WP:CBAN so that discussions remain atleast 48 hours open (Not everyone checks ANI every day so 48 would be better imho). –Davey2010Talk 02:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
To start off: Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Proposal_for_mandatory_minimum_duration_length_for_CBAN_discussions. Further discussion should probably take place there. --NeilN talk to me 02:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Participants in a collaborative community should be able to exercise self-restraint and avoid piling onto a discussion where consensus has already been clearly established, and to avoid antagonizing other members of the community with unfriendly behaviour. If they can't, the remedy should address the problematic editors, rather than seeking to cut short the ability of others to participate. isaacl (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Sometimes I think previous related discussions should be taken into consideration. But this was closed indeed too early, I am glad it's being re-opened. Alex Shih (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Lessons Learned, Comment, Continuing Consensus, and Take CBAN Reform to Village Pump[edit]

First, there is clearly a lesson learned that premature closure of a ban discussion actually extends the ban discussion. If waiting for 24 or 48 hours allows the subject to rally their friends to oppose the ban, maybe there isn't really a community consensus. If there is no consensus, only widespread opposition that is not consensus, maybe the case needs to go to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Second, I think that enough time has elapsed that further argument will not change things. Either there is a consensus after all to ban Darkness Shines, or there isn't. If yes, close this with a ban. If not, close with a stupid warning, knowing that either the community or the ArbCom will still have to do the dirty deed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Third, take any discussion of ban reform to Village pump (policy) or some other village pump. Any discussions here just generate heat in place of light. (What do you expect when the user is Darkness Shines?) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: "CBAN Reform" sounds a little formal, but I can see merit in a WP:BRD change to the current CBAN guidelines that advises against SNOW-closing CBAN !votes in favour of banning a user before the 24 hour mark. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 00:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: @Alfie: Per some more-recent discussion further up involving me, Dennis Brown (who I think is tired of me pinging him), Isaacl (talk · contribs) (who made a good point in an on-wiki response to a related email I sent them, here) and Mendaliv (talk · contribs), I think if there is need for policy reform at this juncture, the more pressing, and the more long-term significant, issue is actually not timing of closes, but rather the distinction or lack thereof between a "community block" and a "ban".
In this case, I originally filed this report based on DS having violated various editing restrictions to which he was apparently subject (some Arbitration, others community, I figured ANI was the best place to file, since technically the relevant Arbitration sanctions were not really DS-specific restrictiins but a strong statement that "the policy applies to you and you will be blocked for violating it"), so if the community decides that a "block" (using that word) is the best way to deal with his violation of these restrictions, is the resulting block just an enforcement measure by a lone admin, or is it a "community block"? Is an admin at liberty to phrase his/her close in terms that bring the particular block down on one side or the other? Do !votes that include wording like Support The community has had enough of this user's disruption. count as comments in favour of a substantially different outcome from those that are worded like Support The community has had enough of this user's violations.? I honestly don't know, and there may not be an easy answer in this case.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I think discussion like that belongs at the WP:VP as Robert suggested - I'm simply concerned that the thread was closed far too early in favour of a CBAN, and we should try to avoid that happening again. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 01:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Dummy ping Hijiri88 because I am good at typoing -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 01:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Derogatory comments[edit]

Sport and politics made an edit on WrestleMania 34 here despite it being source and content supported by source. After it was undone by a user other than myself he undid it again here. After it was once again undone by a user other than myself he added it back for a third time here here. I now came in and this page was previously locked for similar types of edit warring, so I had opened a conversation on this matter to the talk page Talk:WrestleMania 34#Page locked over two weeks ago, to which no one including this user chose to reply to. Therefore since there was no clear consensus I reverted this again with the intention of going to the users page to alert him to the discussion. Before i was able to he opened his own conversation here Talk:WrestleMania 34#Match speculation.

After I explained to him why he was incorrect, he then went to my talk page to make the same arguments again here. Based on his comments I felt it was clear his intentions were to edit war rather than to engage in a conversation, so I simply responded with if he added it back again I would report him for edit warring, and I issued a warning on his page here.

Now for why I am coming here instead of WP:ANEW. Instead of again engaging in a conversation he chose to make comments like " talk second wanker who is typical of tiny endowed males". Personal attacks and derogatory comments. He then decided to issue me an edit warring message instead here, which I removed, as I am more than allowed to do. He felt that I am apparently not allowed to do that and added it back to my page here. I feel that this persons actions are clearly violating multiple policies which is why I am bringing it here. - GalatzTalk 13:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a waste of time.
The discussion on my talk page is closed. A simple look at the very top of my page would indicate my preference regarding the placing of warnings on my page without discussion. Ignoring that is not going to be very constructive. Warnings are a last resort and not a first resort.
No one can give offence one can only take offence, and I cannot be responsible for how touchy and snowflakey other users are, particularly when they are placing garbage on my talk page. The comments are also general in nature and refer to a style of dumping warnings on my talk page without attempting to engage in discussions, which this user is engaging in. The user would be in a far better position if they had an issue with my editing to set up a genuine discussion and not to jump in with threatening warnings. This discussion for example would not exist.
For the benefit of the user who has bought this discussion up here is what WP:civility states:

Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with,... Consider using a personal message instead....

This user should be aware that because they dislike what I have done it is not an excuse for them to perpetuate the behaviour they are complaining of. If they have an issue with reverting, they should not also be engaging in reverting. They should be having a civilised discussion.
I started the discussion on the article talk page, before they user placed such threatening warnings on my page, and they should have engaged in the discussion on the article talk page, as opposed to taking everything in such a high and mighty fashion. The user who has made this report is entirely at fault for the creation of the situation, wheen they should have been engaging on the article talk page.
It also helps if other users use correct pronouns for editors, I am not a he. I am a she. This is abundantly clear on my user page. Sport and politics (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe the above comments confirm that this user is interested in solely proving they are right rather than reading what other people right. I clearly stated that I opened the dialog over 2 weeks ago, yet this user ignored that and proceeded to edit their position disregarding the talk page of the page they were editing. Additionally they have ignored the fact that I explained above the rationale for placing the warning on their talk page. Also according to Merriam-Webster the word he can be defined as used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified as you can see here. - GalatzTalk 14:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Galatz, please make use of an editors preferred pronoun identification usage. You're now aware of it, if you weren't before, so please use it and don't dig a hole. Apologise on that instead of defending your edit and move on. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if my comments came off that way, it was not my intention. - GalatzTalk 14:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Did I just hear someone say "No one can give offence one can only take offence"? That sounds like something kids learn in kindergarten, one of many lies they're taught. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yup. I will admit there is a lot of strength to the S&P incivility issues. Plus I'm sure we've seen her on this board multiple times before for similar. Canterbury Tail talk 15:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand. You're saying that although someone is discussing, because of the things they've done and said, you refuse to accept that they're actually willing to discuss the issue and so are not going to engage in the ongoing discussion and instead have decided to take a WP:Content dispute to ANI or continue to WP:Edit war? As far as I see, S&P posted on the article talk page, you replied, they replied and so it's awaiting further replies from you or someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
My point of coming here is for their comments and actions outside of the discussion on the talk page. - GalatzTalk 14:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
But for what? Realistically minor incivility like that is never going to result in sanction. And while 3RR is not a right, it's not likely someone will be blocked for only 3 reversion, even if it is against multiple other people, unless the edit itself is a serious problem (BLP vio, copyright problem). Especially when they are initiate a discussion after. If either side continues to edit war, you may start to expected either blocks or more likely for the article to be protected. I suggest you all just stop edit warring instead. In other words, sure S&P's behaviour may not be great, but it's not the sort of thing for which there is any hope of action for ANI so I ask again, why are you bringing this content dispute to ANI? The only thing here which seems to be a real problem is the reversion of your removal of their warning on your talk page. (Something you only mentioned at the end of your opening comment.) Per WP:OWNTALK that's clearly wrong. Still it's not something that needs to be at ANI unless S&P continues to add it back. Instead just politely point out OWNTALK to them and ask them not to revert. Something I've now done. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Their comments which I pointed out above are a clear violation of WP:NPA. There was a conversation already on the talk page which the user ignored, only after being reverted 3 times did they open a second thread in talk (note edit warring and 3RR are not the same, they still violated edit warring even without a 4th revert). Per WP:BRD they should have gone to talk after the first revert, not 3rd. Although each one individually may not warrant actions, I believe the combination of everything together is worthy of bringing to ANI. I understand you might not agree, and that is fine. I however felt that this did. - GalatzTalk 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It is clear there is no action to result from this discussion, and I call for this discussion to be closed. Galatz needs to move on from flogging this dead horse. This is getting very boring. Sport and politics (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This comment has not aged well, has it? I find it interesting that S&P has closed every single thread on her own talk page. That is highly unusual and reflects her unwillingness and/or inability to collaborate well with others. Lepricavark (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't read the replies above since I'm a bit bored of this dispute but I just remembered something I forgot to say. I question the utility of issuing an edit warring warning to someone who had just warned you. The primary point of the warning is to ensure that: 1) The editor is aware of our policy on edit warring (particularly since admins are less willing to block if it's a minor violation and the editor is likely unaware) 2) To remind the editor they should try engage in discussion rather than edit warring. While I admit I don't hang out at WP:AN/EW, I would be surprised if any admin didn't block due to the lack of a warning if the editor themselves just issue a warning related to that dispute so just show them issuing the warning if needed, i.e. we can cross of 1. And if an editor isn't self aware enough to remember that they too should be engaging in discussion if involved in the dispute, I don't think warning them back is going to help so let's cross of 2. But anyway whatever. it happened. But I still strongly suggest rather than engaging in this pointless aside you concentrate on the dispute at hand on the article talk page. (Which itself looks like it will be moot in under 2 months.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Sports and politics, this is of course not cool. Don't do that again. Galatz, I looked but I failed to see the clear violations of NPA. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sport and politics: Also, make a comment like this again and you're looking at a block. I doubt we'd tolerate a similar comment made about a female editor and we're not having a double standard here. --NeilN talk to me 15:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Whoa. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • That was the comment I was referring to. - GalatzTalk 15:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't see that, sorry--but I was looking for diffs and skimmed over the text. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I read your reference to the comment above, but didn't read it properly and thought the extent of the incivility was a single instance of calling someone a wanker. I agree that with the second part of the comment it's a much more serious problem and worthy of bringing to ANI whether or not anything happens. Nil Einne (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
And this is pretty much their last comment. Still attacking other editors. I must say I am leaning towards a block for S&P for incivility and inability to work with others and collaborate. Sick of seeing her name here. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Canterbury Tail, I certainly agree that any next blow below the belt should be followed by a block. I'd like to hear from Sports and politics; I want to know if she gets the point. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I suspect a male editor making similarly nasty gendered insults against a female editor would have already been permablocked. Reyk YO! 15:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I suspect they'd be blocked for a period of time, yes. --NeilN talk to me 15:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Sport and politics, sorry to interrupt your nap, but for all your yawning and dismissiveness there's a couple of admins here who are not quite done with you and your sexist jokes yet. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • New rule: any editing dispute over wrestling article to lead to immediate topic bans of all involved and deletion of the article. I think this will rapidly improve the project. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
As much as I want to make a drive-by-witticism agreement with this, I'm forced to admit that if we do this, we may as well hang out a sign saying "Meat and sock puppets wanted. Apply within." Because an articles owned by puppets is the only way to avoid disputes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll go you one better. EEng 06:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • What an odd coincidence that S&P has suddenly stopped editing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Well since we can't rely on them to come back to respond to us we need to make a decision. To block for the comments that most seem to agree are unacceptable or not. We do keep seeing her here on this board for her behaviour after all. Canterbury Tail talk 17:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If anything, I think that a minimum action to take here is to put Sport and politics on a final warning and only warning basis regarding their civility and temperament towards other editors from here on out. If Sport and politics makes any more of these kinds of comments or responses towards another editor, I'll have absolutely no problem with applying a civility block on this user and without further discussion or warning brought to them first. This user's level of collaboration and communication is unacceptable and should not be tolerated any further. An editor with ~7,000 contributions and 5 years of tenure on Wikipedia should absolutely know better than this and should not have to be reminded to comply with Wikipedia's civility policies at all. All of Sport and politics comments and communications are to be in compliance with Wikipedia's civility policies and at all times - failure to do this will result in being blocked. Whether or not Sport and politics makes any kind of response here is irrelevant, and this warning should be applied here and moving forward regardless of their participation here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I think that’s acceptable and reasonable. Canterbury Tail talk 22:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting removal of Pending Changes permissions[edit]

Request denied. There is a consensus that we are not able to enforce "best practice" suggestions from a WikiProject essay as policy, as that would create a conflict with existing editing policy. The essay has some good advice, and is fine as a goal, but WP:Editing policy and WP:Verify clearly allow the addition of information as long as it is possible to verify. WikiPedant is encouraged to add sources when approving edits but there is no policy based rationale for removing advanced privileges for their not doing so. Dennis Brown - 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've spoken to WikiPedant (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · xtools · supercount · pages created (xtools • sigma· non-automated edits · BLP edits · logs (block • rights • moves) · arb · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te) a number of times about the recent change to the Days-of-year pages, which now requires sourcing. Most of these pages have pending changes settings configured such that non auto-confirmed users require acceptance. Unfortunately, when I discussed this change with the editor, s/he rejected the change to the project and told me to get off his/her talk page.

Since this editor is deliberately accepting un-sourced additions, rejecting project standards, and WP:ADMINACCT applies to some level, I am requesting that Pending changes reviewer ‎permissions be revoked from this user's account. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Toddst1. Please remember to notify any involved parties to a discussion at ANI that you are opening. I have taken care of the necessary notification of WikiPedant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Already done. Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I missed that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Since no red links are allowed and every entry is a blue link to an article, why is a source required? Ideally, yes, but WP:V has never said you must verify everything, only that it is possible to verify. Wikipedia is full of missing citations, after all. I see the Project and Essay, and I'm sure that is all good advice, but I'm not sure I want to bit strip someone for not following an essay. Have you had to revert anything they have accepted because it wasn't true? Is there an ongoing problem with him accepting edits that are clearly false? Dennis Brown - 00:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Dennis, there are a couple of points here:
  1. This isn't the place to rehash this discussion. An RFC was opened and closed on the subject. I know a lot of folks who have been around a while have differing views, but this is what was decided - and it makes sense. The project had exempted themselves from a policy and we have a bunch of garbage in these articles as a result - and we're used to it. See #2 & #3.
  2. Yes, there is a not-insignificant problem where events on the DOY pages are incorrect. There are a few WP:WikiGnomes that are spending a tremendous amount of time going through these problems. Dldnh (talk · contribs) is a great example of someone cleaning this mess up.
  3. There is a broader problem where unsourced WP:DOB info appears on both the DOY page and the article page. That is why a blue link alone is not good enough. This problem is rampant. When it comes to living people, that is a serious problem. I've been spending a fair amount of time cleaning this up myself. This is why I proposed the wording on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Style be changed.
  4. The bigger problem IMHO is WP:ADMINACCT. When someone is given advanced privileges, they are held to standards accordingly. When someone with advanced privileges is asked in good faith to use them more in line with agreed-upon standards and to enforce a policy, the answer shouldn't be along the lines of "You're harassing me. You're disruptive. Get off my talk page and stay off" which is what we have here. I know this one better than most, and one of the reasons I am a former admin.
Toddst1 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You haven't really addressed my concerns. You are using the basis for action an RFC at a WikiProject, about the wording of an essay. While that may accurately summarize "best practices", there is no policy that I am aware of to bolster your claim. In fact, our policy on verification and our WP:Editing policy seem to contradict that essay. I'm not going to bit strip someone based on that essay, regardless of how many RFCs were had to formulate it, as I don't see a pattern of abuse or policy/guideline violation. Of course, you are free to challenge any entry by removing it (although I wouldn't just go after a single person's edits, for obvious reason), or go find a source yourself (which is probably the most productive option), but I simply don't see a clear POLICY violation that justifies the drastic action of removing someone's advanced bit. Quite literally, it would be an abuse for me to remove his bit without being able to show a policy violation, and my action would be subject to the same WP:adminacct you quote. Dennis Brown - 03:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis Brown, sorry. I don't see a persistent pattern of misuse here ([153]), rather than following the (previous) longstanding practice (in Years/Days of the year and other similar projects). Looking back at the RfC, the consensus of that discussion isn't really clear IMO despite of the closing statement, but I agree it's not appropriate to discuss them here. If we were to enforce that particular result of the RfC moving forward, I am thinking along the lines of "encouraging best practice" (WP:DOYSTYLE) would probably be better in the long term, instead of imposing them as required mandatory practice (which is what's happening here, I think). Alex Shih (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm also with Dennis Brown here. The RFC established a proper style for a finished list; that we are aiming for having every entry with proper citations. That's fine, but to refuse to accept needed work because it isn't perfect seems unreasonable, Wikipedia articles are built in collaboration, and built over time, and we accept good-faith additions by people which are on the path towards our end goals. If something is verifiable but simply lacks a source, it's quite allowed to add the source yourself or to leave it for such a time that someone else can add a source later. Demanding that the article must be in its finished state from EVERY edit is beyond unreasonable, and I don't believe that is what the RFC authorized. --Jayron32 13:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I am in agreement with Dennis Brown, Jayron32 and Alex Shih above. Seems too drastic a step based on an essay that does not carry the weight of a policy or guideline. Net positive to not remove WikiPedant's bit. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Apparent behavioral problems at List of Death in Paradise episodes[edit]

Persistent disruptive editing - after they have been blocked twice - by user Kaos Edward Nick (talk · contribs). They probably contributed as IP user (talk · contribs) during the time the registered username was blocked. --Richard-DIP (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The edits made yesterday by Kaos Edward Nick here just look to be simple table color changes and the creation of a column - these don't look disruptive to me at all. What's the user been doing that's been disruptive? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The edits for which they were blocked were unsourced speculation about shows and casts in 2020 - they haven't repeated that as far as I can see since the last block, although they're starting to push the boundary on some topics. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
They added unsourced speculative air dates for season 8 (diff), removed the "References" section header and reflist tag (diff), added a speculative synopsis (episode 8 of season 7 has not aired yet) (diff), added a speculative announcement (episode 8 of season 7 has not aired yet) (diff) --Richard-DIP (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Richard's username, Richard-DIP, and his contributions hint at WP:OWNership issues. There may be enough trout to share in this report. Cabayi (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Stewardship is not the same thing as ownership. If you have some specific diffs of WP:OWN violations, please present them, otherwise it is casting aspersions. Dennis Brown - 19:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on block[edit]

Please see the second AIV report here. Contribs can be seen here. Any objections to the block? --NeilN talk to me 13:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Good block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
That's a pretty damn high-level rangeblock; you've essentially blocked an entire chunk of a cell-phone carrier's users from accessing Wikipedia for the sake of shutting down two trolls that happen to use that service. I'm not saying I oppose, and I'm not saying I support, I'm just saying... --Jayron32 14:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I looked at about 50 contribs from the past month and about 10% were decent (nothing particularly good). The other 90% were vandalism, disruption, or people playing around. --NeilN talk to me 14:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, blocking wide ranges like this can naturally look scary, but the edits from this range are almost entirely disruptive and the risk for collateral damage is very low. Situations like these are what make the block of a range (even wide ones) necessary. Do I like doing it? Of course not. Do I try my best to avoid doing it if other solutions exist? Of course. But sometimes this is what's needed, too... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me - go for it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Good block IMO, though a tough call. Thanks for bringing it for discussion. It's a large range, yes, but that shouldn't stop us from preventing disruption. It's anon-only so anyone with an account on that range should still be able to edit (right?) but should you have blocked account creation? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
No, thanks for pointing that out. Fixed. --NeilN talk to me 14:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning to criticize, I was actually wondering if that was a thing that we should do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine, but I would really like to see it reduced to a week. I'm not seeing any major disruption, just run of the mill vandalism, and I don't feel comfortable with a month long range block that wide of a mobile carrier for what is likely high school kids messing around. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Go through the contribs for a couple months. If you feel a week long block will stem all that disruption then feel free to reduce. --NeilN talk to me 14:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The range has been used by an LTA (filing cases against checkusers) and another sockmaster. There isn't much collateral damage for anon editing. Two regular users use the range and they would be collateral if this were a hardblock. Blocking account creation isn't necessarily a bad thing here. Longer block likely to be more effective than naught.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Given the CU data above, I have no objections now. I was just looking at the high school type stuff that could be seen publicly, and didn't see any attempts for shorter blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Something worth watching is the /41 range because the CU logs show that as a range of concern. The Whois record shows a /44 but three different CUs have checked the /41.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, if the /44 block doesn't stop everything and a /41 would, it can be easily extended if the need presents itself. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
After continuing to keep watch over the contributions from both the /44 and the /41 ranges, I think that blocking at the /44 should be sufficient. I don't see any disruption from IPs that are outside of the /44 but within the /41. I also see what appear to be good faith edits from within that /44 - /41 range pool as well, so we should avoid blocking at this range unless we have no other choice. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I've been through a few and they also seem to be wireless broadband in small geographical area. Blocks like this may unfortunately be necessary to stop LTA, as LTA users will probably be given a new IP address every time they log on: blocking single IPs or even /64 connections are liable to be next to useless. The only alternative is to these sort of blocks is semi-protecting all articles affected, but if a lot of different articles are affected then that falls down too. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Sipos111 for WP:NOTHERE and WP:OUTING myself and Niteshift36[edit]

Sipos111 (talk · contribs) recently joined to push content related to the recent shooting in Florida. While I understand the wish to add recent content that doesn't excuse outing Wiki editors, myself and @Niteshift36: on an external website. [[154]] Here is where Sipos111 tells another editor that he is involved in the external posting. [[155]] Springee (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That article is from April 2017 (10 months ago), doesn't appear to engage in WP:OUTING, and doesn't appear to be by Sipos111. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
No outing here, and the majority of Sipos111's contributions have been constructive. - TNT 22:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I missed the date. The new editor posted The link today and based on the accompanying statements I assumed it was recent. I would still be suspicious that a new editor would post such an article their first day here. Springee (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps - best if we just let them get on with contributing and see where that leads, at least for now? Face-smile.svg - TNT 22:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the outing, I didn't read the full article in the external link. However, based on Sipos111's behavior, I have to agree they are WP:NOT HERE to build an encyclopaedia. Rather, their only goal here seems to be pushing an anti-gun agenda. I've tried to advise them that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX, but there may also be a WP:CIR competency issue. They don't appear interested (by their own comments) in learning WP P&G or contributing effectively. If all they want to do push an agenda and disrupt articles of sporting good manufacturers in pursuit of that agenda, then that makes them an SPA and we really consider the value of keeping their account active against the stability of the project. (my 0.02¢) - theWOLFchild 23:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not outing. However, it is a personal attack. I also wonder how the user found the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I suppose you were not able to answer your own question, Bbb. FYI, one of the things that the Lightbreather case taught me is that there is a TON of off-wiki collusion (NO COLLUSION NO COLLUSION HERE FOLKS NOTHING TO SEE), so I'm not surprised to see LB's musings pop up here. Also, well, a whole bunch of people got killed, and some are upset, including me. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed (mostly). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I must be missing the personal attack then - could someone point me to it? - TNT 00:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I call it more "uncivil" in my opinion. Their messages here, here, and here make unfounded accusations of one's "agenda" and are indeed absolutely unnecessary and un-collaborative in nature. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with that - TNT 00:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Sipos, make up your mind. If you want to get blocked and brag about it, just continue to do what you're doing. If you want to edit Wikipedia, get serious. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Drmies - Regardless, I'm pretty much prepared to impose an indefinite topic ban on Sipos111 from anything related to firearm ownership on this project. This user's edits on this topic clearly show personal bias and POV-pushing, and it would benefit this topic area if this user were prohibited from participating there. This user has been alerted, and as far as I'm concerned - he's fair game to have editing restrictions imposed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe that an indefinite block is warranted. It's clear that he was recruited by Lightbreather, to come to Wiki for the soul purpose of causing disruption and adding a political agenda. Please see for more information.--RAF910 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I see Lighbreather retweeted Feinstein--good, Feinstein deserves a medal. I don't take the "recruiting" part very seriously, not until we have proof of collusion (I know how that sounds, haha). It's entirely possible that Sipos came here because of that, but that doesn't invalidate Sipos as an editor; we all came here one way or another. This is not leading to a block right now, but let's see how they continue. If they're fine, fine. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
These responses left by the user here and here might be a sign that this user is reading the concerns expressed (either here or expressed to them directly) and might be taking it to heart and wising up. While this is nice to see, I would very much like to see Sipos111 respond here as well... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism reported at OTRS 2018021110003395[edit]

This link - shows the name "Recep Tayyip Erdoğan" under the image of "Abdul Hamid II". I just can't find where that name is located! Ronhjones  (Talk) 03:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to the ticket. I'm not sure if it was intentionally done, as it appears to be miscaption from this template ([156]). It should be fixed now. Alex Shih (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I was hunting around wikidata, assuming it was some sneaky vandal. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

angry troll is harassing my page[edit]


A few months back someone began adding slanderous paragraphs to my wikipedia page, after a few tweets of mine were used in a new york times article about the closing of a broadway show. The last time they did this, an admin reverted everything and the page was semi protected, but this person has started up again. I have deleted what they posted in, but they tend to get an alert and just repost it back. Can it be semi-protected again?

Thank you!

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcasal (talkcontribs) 05:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page to cut down on the problems. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 05:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Unarchived. There's definitely some WP:OWN going on here, and that article is as atrocious a WP:MYSPACE violation as I've seen in recent years. While I agree the content OP is complaining about doesn't belong, it's certainly not slanderous, and isn't much farther out of step with our policies than anything else in the article... just that it's something the article subject doesn't like. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Rafael Casal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    It's perfectly acceptable for Rafaelcasal to revert (diff) edits by an SPA here to settle scores. Their edits in January were very minor and again fine. I don't see any "ownership". There are plenty of fluffy articles and this can be cleaned like the others, but the reason for the original post was valid and the issue has been resolved for now, although the article history shows that the SPA will return. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Casal. It is highly unlikely that the WP:SPAs who created and edited this article are not in some way connected with the subject. It see-saws between hit piece and PR biography, as is not uncommon for bios with marginal notability. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

IP user leaving disruptive edit summaries; many of which are dummy edits[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP user is making a number of edits in which the IP calls out other Wikipedia users. See, for example, [157], [158], [159], [160], and [161]. The edits aren't vandalism per se, as the IP often makes a dummy edit (not really a true dummy edit, but they're dummy edits in that the user will make a change on the page with a disruptive edit summary, then immediately revert the edit back with another disruptive edit summary). The IP also makes a number of other disruptive comments in edit summaries, such as [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], and [171]. I left messages on the IP's user talk page asking them to stop calling out other users in edit summaries, but the user has done so at least twice after the warnings. I'm not sure if the IP user just doesn't grasp that what they're doing is disruptive, or if the IP is trending toward WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR. Aside from this, the editor does make some constructive edits, though finding them can be difficult between all of the IP's dummy edits. Can an admin keep an eye on this user and take action if the behavior continues? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. This user's conduct and editing behavior is absolutely not acceptable. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Oshwah, for your quick action. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No problem; always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I hid some of the edit summaries, feel free to identify any others. Admins can do this direct from a diff, so post diffs by all means. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for doing that, Guy, much appreciated. I skimmed through the user's contributions (not very carefully), and I think the only other instance of the user calling out other editors is at this diff. Thanks again for your help. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

IP keeps adding personal info of [[ [REDACTED - Oshwah] ]] on ANI[edit]

Nothing more to do. Jbh Talk 22:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, the IP keeps adds personal info of [[ [REDACTED - Oshwah] ]] on ANI. Despite being reverted many times, the user keeps readding info back. See [ [REDACTED - Oshwah] ]. This might require revdel. Stylez995 (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Issue has been handled. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Stylez995 (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No problem; it's what I'm here for ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Pigsonthewing and COI tags[edit]

I hate to do this, but Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (Andy) has got another bee in his bonnet. He has decided that COI tags on articles are a BLP problem, and is removing them based on a legalistic interpretation of the tag documentation. Specifically, he removes the tag if there is no active talk page section discussing the COI - even if there is a rather obvious identification of the COI on Talk, or if the discussion was initiated but has archived out.


  • Harvey Newquist II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • [Article] 00:01, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (5,216 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (nothing on talk;) [172]
  • [Talk] 03:53, February 16, 2018‎ Bri (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (378 bytes) (+170)‎ . . (paid-editor relationship disclosed here) [173]
  • [Talk] 03:54, February 16, 2018‎ Bri (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (428 bytes) (+50)‎ . . (Hnewquist connected? possibly.) [174]
  • 11:54, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (4,776 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (still nothing on talk page) [175]
  • 16:06, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (4,396 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (→‎top: Still nothing on talk) [176]

So, this is an article that had a COI tag due to an admitted paid connection and a username that is very obviously a family member, but there was no identification of this on Talk. The first removal was, IMO, fair. However, the second and third removals occurred after templates had been added tot he Talk page identifying not only a paid editor but also an obvious family member and that is into WP:POINT territory.

This is not the first time. Examples:

  • [177] was valid, and a tag was added to talk shortly afterwards
  • [178] had a Talk template identifying an obviously conflicted editor for over two years before Andy removed the COI tag.
  • [179] had a paid editor tag on Talk since January and a discussion on Talk but it was auto-archived out on Jan 9 [180].

So we have an absolutely standard Andy situation, where he is 100% sincere, completely committed, has the very best of intentions, is sometimes undoubtedly right, but, equally, sometimes unequivocally wrong, and prepared to edit-war over it. We have been here before, many times, over many years.

Backstory (Warning: may contain TL;DR)

This is not a case of giving a dog a bad name. Words like "fixated" have been a stable part of discourse about Andy since forever (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive6 § Pete Townshend - "soft-ban" on fixated editors 2), and a search for his username on the archives will readily show that the examples are not cherry-picked. After a year-long ban (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing) for most of 2006, Andy was back to edit-warring over meta content within a few months (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive256 § Geni warring again), he was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and revert warring in 2007, sanctioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive6 § User:Pigsonthewing and eventually subject to another 12-month ban under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. That ban was from August 19 2007 to the same date 2008, and less than a month later he was blocked again. He is capable of sustaining a dispute for years (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688 § Jim Hawkins/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233 § Off-wiki solicitation of vandalism/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive234 § Proposed topic ban of Pigsonthewing). In 2013 ArbCom indefintiely banned him from adding infoboxes, due to edit-warring (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes § Pigsonthewing and infoboxes). Edit-warring is a stable feature of Andy's contributions to Wikipedia. Once he has decided that he is right, it seems to be nigh on impossible to persuade him otherwise (e.g. Template:Article section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), edit-warring a CSD tag, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941 § Beetstra and Twitter/ Facebook). The objective significance of the issue doesn't seem to matter (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive182 § Urgent editprotected request).

The current problem is IMO relatively easily solved: a topic ban on removing COI templates, either entirely or where there is a {{connected contributor}} or similar template on Talk, with full permission to alert on WP:COIN or WP:BLPN if he does identify an issue. I also think that Andy should be under a 1RR restriction, given his very extensive history of edit warring. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As you know, the requirement for {{COI}} is (formatting in original, the tempalte's /Doc page):

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.

To emphasise, that's what is non-neutral about the article.

As you also know, a recent ANI case on the removal of the tag was closed with this finding:

Removing tags is fine, re-adding them is also fine but, per template's instructions and long-standing practice, only if... there is genuine evidence to underpin the tag, in the form of a specific post on Talk describing the issue at hand

I find it odd that you fail to mention this, given that you closed that ANI case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There is also ongoing discussion, initiated by Guy, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#The mess that is COI tagging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
See above: "legalistic". See also: discussion archived out. You did not check for that. But all you've done here is prove my point, sadly. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
"discussion archived out" Talk:Harvey Newquist II was created on the eleventh of this month (six days ago); as I checked, before removing the tag; I'm curious as to how you think you would know otherwise. It has no archives. Or perhaps you refer to the Steve Vai article. Again, I checked (and again, how would you know otherwise?), saw the old discussion and noted that it discussed who had edited, but not what is non-neutral about the article. I also noted the vast amount of editing, by very many editors, in the article, between when the tag was placed, in January 2016, and when I viewed it, over two years later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Andy, you're doing it again. You behave as if your viewpoint has unambiguous consensus, even when it plainly doesn't, even when you have numerous times been sanctioned for doing exactly the same thing. Your legalistic interpretation of the tag instructions is that a talk page discussion must have been initiated. You didn't even check to see if it ever had been, and you removed a tag despite (a) clear evidence of COI and (b) a talk page discusison actually having been initiated. You were wrong. You were also wrong about Newquist because not only is there a family member editing, there's also a paid account. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
[Ec] ...and see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Please unclose close at ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Good grief. You've been thumping on Andy for two weeks straight. Give it a rest already. "hate to do this" my ass - one thread after another. SMH — Ched :  ?  — 14:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I have not I have been looking at a long-running fight sustained on one side largely by Andy, and his history, including two twelve-month sitebans indicates that his is hardly new. If I was thumping on Andy I'd have asked for rather more than a narrow restriction to control obvious WP:POINT. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The required talk page discussion would have sorted this muddle. That's what talk pages are for. Note the time stamps. Andy's first edit is at 00:01. COI disclosure is almost 4 hours later at 3:53. All Guy had to do was post on the talk page and this would have been dealt with. Given the last two weeks and the ongoing discussions on COI, a simple comment could have dissipated this confusion. As well, much of the discord and discussion of the last weeks has been around the template which asks for discussion on the talk page; it is a known source of contention.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC))
    • The "required talk page discussion" that was initiated and archived out, you mean? Guy (Help!) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Diff, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
      • You entered a discussion on the 17th; this began on the 16th? Is that right or am I missing something which is possible? Why not just deal with this confusion on the talk page. I'm not going to engage in snipes with you, Guy. I am suggesting that you might have been able too deal with this on a talk page rather than posting this long notice. There's lots of confusion here given the time stamps. I assume good faith and hope you did this with the best of intentions; I just don't think this is the best way to deal with this given the last two weeks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC))
        • While Wikipedia has long seemed to creep towards an "exhaustion of remedies"-like doctrine when it comes to filing complaints on noticeboards, that doctrine comes with an escape valve for actions that would be futile. That is, if we're going to start importing legal doctrines, we aren't gonna do it by halves. As Andy has proved (see the prior discussion links Guy provided above), there is no "discussion" with Andy unless you agree with him. So, yes, coming to ANI is proper. If anything, it's a conservative move: This nonsense should go straight to the Arbitration Committee given the community has proved to be completely impotent when it comes to dealing with Andy's disruption. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Editors who edit for pay or offer commercial services related to Wikipedia have an inherent conflict regarding the COI policies, guidelines, tagging of articles etc. Its in their personal financial interest to weaken the enforcement in general of our rules regarding paid and COI editing, so they should not be removing any COI tags, not just ones related to their own editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Shame templates are indeed a WP:BLP concern, in that respect I agree with Andy, they state nothing about the quality of the published content. Govindaharihari (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ban on removing COI templates and 1 RR. Templates should not be removed without fixing the issues in question. Andy is being pointy and has already been edit warring with respect to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Fabrication from ShaneFilaner[edit]

User indefinitely blocked by Acalamari Jbh Talk 22:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user is known for (not always but quite often) making problematic sales changes to articles and as noted at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#More deception from ShaneFilaner and the thread before it WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969#Ongoing disruptions from ShaneFilaner. See those for more detail. In short, he's a deceptive user who tries to inflate sales and/or insert thinly veiled fancruft in general. His latest form of disruption since his latest block is fabricating charts that don't actually exist (and "World Music Awards" is a questionable source anyway). The guy has no excuse, and I've told him before that it gets noticed when he tries to deceive others. He obviously doesn't care and I don't see how anything less than an indefinite block will teach him to cut it out at this point. If he isn't blocked indefinitely this time (see this for past blocks), then please at the very least block him for a month. It's really aggravating to see him continue his poor conduct. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Pinging admins Acalamari and JzG who have previously blocked him for disruption. Someone really needs to put a stop to his antics. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I have indefinitely blocked ShaneFilaner. No change in behavior. Acalamari 18:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Many thanks for that! He's basically been asking for it and this was long overdue. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

2001:470::/32 block is way too wide[edit]

I'm trying to edit Wikipedia from home through my Hurricane Electric IPv6 tunnel. The 2001:470::/32 is way too wide, and is getting in my way. These tunnels are not anonymous. This is not a colocationwebhost. Please consider blocking at the /48 or smaller level instead, and for 2001:470:5 blocks really should be no bigger than /64, as that is the allocation which we receive.

If this can't be done, is there a way to whitelist certain /48 or /64 allocations within 2001:470::/32?

16:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

(Non-administrator comment) Yeah, I concur that it's a bit heavy-handed to block the entire range - HE aren't a colo, and they offer transit/tunneling for a wide range of services including residential ISPs. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 17:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with anyone changing the block as need be. Rangeblocks have never been my strong suit. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC), which /48 or /64 ranges do you have in mind for whitelisting? This range has had quite a number of sockmasters as evidenced by the CU log. And yes, they are a colocation webhost provider.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


He deleted my new page about Julius Freed. Julius Freed was one of the two guys who founded Orange Julius and I was upset when there was not a page about him yesterday so I made one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Julius Freed is a redirect to Orange Julius which has not been changed since 2010 and is protected. ClueBot doesn't delete pages. Perhaps you mean that ClueBot prevented you from editing this page, which is correct based on the protection. General Ization Talk 21:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@General Ization: IP says "there was not a page, so I made one" [...] "Clubot deleted my new page". I wonder if he is trolling. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass creation of pages 'Be Bold' in userspace[edit]

Boldly closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have noticed that a lot of non-autoconfirmed are creating pages 'User:Example/Be Bold', with the only content on the being, "Being bold is very important on Wikipedia", or some other rendition of it. I don't what, if anything, can be done about this, maybe an edit filter?

Examples[a] — [(1)], [(2)], [(3)], [(4)], [(5)], [(6)], [(7)], [(8)], [(9)], [(10)], [(11)] and [(12)].

Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 21:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)(Edited 22:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC))


  1. ^ Note these are some selected examples, there are many more 'Be Bold' pages in the userspace.
I found a bunch too. I wondered if it was a school classroom exercise. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac: I also found 'Example/Citing sources'. See: [(13)], [(14)], [(15)], and [(16)]. Should the be salted?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • See, e.g., User:MParacha. Any complaints should go to the instructor or Wiki Ed coordinator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a bunch of people doing a WikiEd course at the University of Michigan. They're practicing wiki syntax in their user spaces. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Pattern of adding factually false claims to articles[edit]

This report concerns the editor Little Bizarre Dio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Prior to my encounters with this editor, other editors had raised concerns about Little Bizarre Dio adding unsourced content to articles. This in itself is no big deal, if not ideal.

However, over the Christmas period this editor's contributions became more troublesome, when they added demonstrably false content to an article and fabricated some sources to conceal the deception. I raised this issue on their talk page. To keep this report brief I won't regurgitate the issue here, but the discussion regarding the edits (with the appropriate diffs) can be found at User_talk:Little_Bizarre_Dio#Adding_fake_data_and_sources. I asked them for an explanation, but none was forthcoming.

This episode had slipped my mind, until the editor's talk page started popping up on my watchlist again today. Both SummerPhDv2.0 and Dave Dial have raised concerns about this editor adding dozens of factually inaccurate categories to music articles. The gist of the problem is demonstrated here, the scale of it can be appreciated by studying their contribution history over the last 24 hours.

I think it is time to stop giving this editor the benefit of the doubt. It is one thing for an inexperienced editor to add unsourced content, but we know that experience isn't the issue here because the editor is able to fabricate sources when it suits their agenda. The editor never responds to concerns raised on their talk page which makes it difficult to make headway with these issues. I know it is not my place to suggest sanctions, but I think a lengthy block should be considered, at least until this editor shows a willingness to engage with other editors and observe Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment -- Yes, this editor seemed to be making edits that are not backed up by sources. So I looked at their Talk page and edit history & it's a pattern. To make matters worse, they do not respond to inquiries or give any reasons. A block until viable explanations are given is warranted. This seems like either sneaky vandalism, disrupting on purpose or competence. Dave Dial (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I've blocked the editor indefinitely for the persistent addition and modification of content, as well as the modification of article categories - without providing any references or sources. I feel that with the level of changes this user is making and at the rate they were doing so, an unblock appeal must be filed and a discussion had with the user before we return editing privileges back to them. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's probably the most prudent course of action. That way if the editor wants to explain themselves & better understands Wiki policies, they can be unblocked. If not, the account is blocked. Dave Dial (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I ran across the editor's addition of Category:Music memes to a lengthy list of songs where the article gave no indication that they were in any way connected to significant memes. didn't get a chance to comment. :( - SummerPhDv2.0 22:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
SummerPhDv2.0 - Haha... you know, you can still comment even though the user is now blocked. There's no "sacred rule" that says you can't... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
'S okay. You saw a problem, dug a hole and pushed it in. Problem solved. Ill feeding my need to kvetch with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_17#Category:Music_memes. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism[edit]

IP blocked for one year. (non-admin closure) -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 01:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There seems to be quite a bit of trouble caused by an anonymous IP going by User talk: This user has a history of "blanking pages" all over wikipedia. He has been blocked in March 2017 for 3 months, then blocked again in July 2017 for 6 months, and now this user is back to doing the very things he was blocked for in the first place. He has already blanked the pages for the Godzilla (franchise) article twice, shown here and here and the article for Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters, shown here. It's pretty clear that this user has not learned his lesson with temporary blocks. Perhaps a permanent block should suffice. Armegon (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

IP is blocked for one year due to repeated vandalism. This IP's edits would typically be ruled as "stale" since it hasn't edited in about two days now, but given the number of edits in proportion to the number of blocks in the IP's log, I think it's okay to apply a block in this situation. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor not willing to follow policy[edit]

The bot policy, which covers all automated, semi-automated and script-assisted editing, is clear that if any errors are introduced into the page then it is the responsibility of the editor making the (semi-)automated or assisted edit to ensure that they are fixed.

Walter Görlitz's edit to Minneapolis City SC introduced errors, specifically filling out references with the details of a domain squatting page rather than of the actual source. I fixed this [181] and left a message on their talk page to remind them of the need to fix it themselves in future [182]. This note was reverted with the summary No. You can fix the titles or removed the dead links. Thanks.. I followed this up with an explicit link to the policy, but was again rudely reverted with a refusal to follow policy [183].

Further communication directly from me will clearly not be listened to, but following the bot policy when making any (semi-)automated or assisted edits is not optional - hence I've come here.

For reference there are currently roughly 150 instances of pages with link metadata from domain squatting pages that use the phrase "this website is for sale" in the title [184] and undoubtedly plenty more from other variations (see User:Thryduulf/Domain reselling pages for a list of others I've encountered at least once while fixing this one). Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Diff of my notifying Walter Görlitz of this thread, as it is likely to be reverted. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we not have a bot that fixes those by means of the wayback machine? I've manually done some over the years but figured that is so common that someone had made a bot to do that by now. As for Walter, our policy is pretty clear that every user owns their edits and is responsible for the content, automated or not, plus we have additional policy that covers automated edits since there is the risk of doing the wrong thing, many times, really fast. I'm curious to hear Walter's viewpoint on this situation before jumping to conclusions here. Dennis Brown - 01:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The InternetArchiveBot is apparently unable to (reliably?) distinguish between the original source and domain squatted web pages so it can only fix dead links and some redirected links, and it will sometimes add links to archived domain squatting pages. They thus have to be fixed manually. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Well partially true. IABot can be told if an entire domain no longer functions. Then it will go looking for archives closest to the access date as possible.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is this an ANI issue? I'm not sure what the notifying editor would like me to do here. I made the change late at night. He notified me of the problem and fixed it while I slept. I can't fix his fixes and I have acknowledged that I should check the edits so I am following policy. This edit is a bit aggressive on my part, but it reflects that he had already made the fixes. This revert makes it clear that I understand the policy and that I know the policy, Thryduulf fixed it, and now he's simply harassing me. So this is not an ANI issue that I can see, but would like to know what assurances @Thryduulf: would like from me. On the other hand, there misrepresentations here: "Further communication directly from me will clearly not be listened to" as I listened, and I responded. A revert without comment or archiving his comments would have show that I wasn't listening. As for a bot that fixes this, I haven't seen that it fixes parked sites, only ones that deal with deal links that are marked as such. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In neither of your reverts did you give me any indication that you had either acknowledged that this was an error or that you would look out for it in future - indeed pretty much the exact opposite. FWIW you introduced the same error at In Mourning (band) on 16 February [185]. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
That's simply not true. Look at the second revert, the one were I stated "I know the policy". What do those words mean to you?
And while we're at at, could you explain why you ignored Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Further, and slightly more to the point, you have not made the case that I have stated that I am "not willing to follow policy". You inferred or possibly assumed it. You did not seek clarification. You simply restored an edit that I had removed (which means I acknowleded it) and piled-on. In fact, I have stated in the edit summary when I removed your edit, and here, that I am willing to follow the policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:GizzyCatBella, possible POV-pushing, general problems with others[edit]

Afformentioned longtime Wikipedia user has been frequenting the pages pertaining to Poland's relationship with the Holocaust, especially the following article. I made valid edits to, also adding sources to, Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II, of which most of the edits have been removed or changed. User then posted to my talk page a post accusing me of POV-pushing. I deleted the post and warned the user to assume good faith in other editors, and I don't think it worked. I tried to stay away from most of the articles this user is editing, and when I gave my civil thoughts on the talk page for Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II as to why a study from a Polish Historian should be mentioned, and trying to rebut the user's beleif that the material shouldn't be included at all, User responded with a very uncivil message, which was a personal attack on my intelligence:[186]

If you are willing to have this nonsense engraved in your head that the entire society could have been participating in the killings, then you have a problem. Let me tell you this. I'm old enough to remember these times, especially the times shortly after the war and I can tell you that neither myself nor anyone I know in Poland didn't kill a single Jew. And I know quite a few people over there. So that must make me and the people I know very special indeed.. I not even willing to continue this ridiculous discussion with you. Sorry

I believe per that comment that the user is engaged in using original research coupled with their strong personal expierience and view to edit these articles with an agenda; pushing a POV that does not jive with the mission of Wikipedia. I feel that the user should be sternly warned, or possibly blocked from editing the subject completely.

A few other issues I have noticed is general unwillingness to work with others per WP:CONSENSUS. Here, the user refuses to work with another on image sizes: [187]

Other issues include a general lack of knowledge about how to edit wikipedia, which is hardly a crime, but I feel should be at least noted.:[188],[189] R9tgokunks 01:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Two people who are pleasant enough on their own but just can't get along together because they push each other's buttons. R9tgokunks quotes daily papers like a credible source in heated debates. This is not good. Real historians have real names, real education, and real reputation to defend. Haretz doesn't because it is a company, not a scientist, similar to CBC. — Quoting dailies is like saying: "it's on the Internet, so it must be true." If you are willing to negotiate, than compromise. And please try to separate the wheat from the chaff. Speculations are not "rigorous studies".[190] Poeticbent talk 04:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Many non-admin AfD closures by User:Jdcomix[edit]

Hello, folks. I'm not looking to see any sanctions imposed against User:Jdcomix, but I think it might be helpful if an administrator had a brief discussion with them.

A short while ago, I noticed that Jdcomix did about 40 non-admin AfD relists or closures in the space of about ten minutes. I objected to one of the re-listings, and opened a discussion with them on their Talk page (User talk:Jdcomix#relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Washington's Outstanding Teen). Shortly thereafter, two other users posted similar concerns about other non-admin actions at AfD. But just a few minutes ago, I saw that Jdcomix returned to these fast-paced actions, doing about another 40 AfD re-lists or closures, again in the space of about ten minutes. This strikes me as just too fast a pace to be properly assessing the discussions.

As I said at the outset, I'm not looking for sanctions against Jdcomix. But if any administrator agrees that they are doing too many of these in too short a time, I ask that they discuss it with Jdcomix.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want me to slow down, I can absolutely do that, so I appreciate the feedback. As I say on my user page, I'm willing to be smacked with a trout if need be. :) Jdcomix (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Are the closures themelves disputed, or just the non-admin nature of them? I'd agree that Jdcomix needs to take good care when closing AfDs, but if their closures are consistently undisputed I don't see the issue with taking them off the admins' plates. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 02:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alfie: Thanks for commenting. Because I'm not looking for sanctions against Jdcomix, I didn't analyze the approximately 80 discussions that were closed in the combined space of about twenty minutes. But at an average of fifteen seconds per discussion, I don't see how it is humanly possible to give them anything approaching a proper analysis. And this raises the question of how many of their "keep" decisions are really justified. But aside from the sheer speed of these decisions, there is the equally-concerning question of whether Jdcomix is conforming their decisions to policy. In my discussion on their Talk page, I was told that policy calls for relisting a discussion whenever consensus has not been demonstrated. But this simply isn't true, at least not in general. For discussions that receive virtually no participation, administrators are empowered to close as "soft delete". But Jdcomix's fast-paced relisting of such discussions effectively removes (or delays) that option. Another broad exception (and the one that raised my concerns on Jdcomix's Talk page) is for discussions that have seen substantive policy-based arguments on both sides of the issue. My reading of WP:RELIST suggests that these discussions should not be relisted, but instead should be closed (by an administrator, if the issue is controversial).

And so, to answer your question, yes -- some of the closures are being disputed. But on top of that, there are serious questions as to whether Jdcomix can possibly be doing quality work at such a fast pace. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I have arrived here via their talk page, where I was going to question why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grebe Lake (Alaska) needed a second relist, and saw the notification of this thread. There’s no way you could correctly determine the correct course of action in 40 AFDs in ten minutes, as indicated by all the objections surfacing on the users’ talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks on another user and me by User:Nickag989[edit]

User:Nickag989 has harassed another user in fastlene 2018 and called me a sock on his talk page when I told him to stop on fastlene 2018 it said go f yourself to another user in his revision in fastlene 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice 72 (talkcontribs) 03:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


I've never done this before, so I hope I am doing it right. Xinjao was blocked yesterday as the result of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:CIR,_editor_frequently_calling_constructive_edits_a_"vandalism". I thought it best to post it here.

Dear Administrators.

I do not feel this indef block is reasonable or necessary. In my 11 years on Wikipedia, I have never edit warred or launched personal attacks against anyone. I have never been subject to any warnings, blocks or bans in this time either (except this one of course). As someone who has taken a keen interest in Pakistani topics over the last two decades I have edited articles to improve accuracy to the best of my knowledge. Inevitably disputes arise between users and I have almost always raised my concerns on talk pages or walked away altogether.

Keeping this in mind, I do own up to my mistake of using poor choice of words and a strong tone when I have addressed opposing edits, which I realise is disruptive and leads to unproductive and toxic exchange between users. As such, my use of the term "vandalism" was subjective and not in sync with Wiki policy. This won't happen again. I did earlier apologise to User Edward for the very same thing [6], which he appears to have accepted [7]. I will make a note of toning down my messages and be more objective when delivering my points to others.

I will also admit that I was feeling frustrated as my last exchange resulted in a false accusasion of sockpuppeting [8]. This is not meant as an excuse by any means but a little insight into why I was briefly feeling disillusioned and may have assumed bad faith. Once again, This is my issue and I own up to it.

However regarding my language competency, I believe my English is perfectly fine for the purpose of contributing to English Wikipedia. Prior to this ANI, nobody else has ever criticised my proficiency in English.

I do feel that a warning would have sufficed as I am a reasonable person and always open to constructive criticism. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks --Xinjao (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure of the procedure here, but I looked a bit at the ANI complaint/debate above, and the infef block seems way excessive. The user was blocked based on lack of competence, with one of the allegations being that the user does not master English, which is obviously not correct. Another complaint was calling other editors edit for "vandalism" without good reason, which has more merit, but as user has acknowledged this wording is unfortunate, and doesn't seem to have been warned for it before, it should hardly merit an indef block. There were few participants in the discussion, and I suggest it is reopened with more people looking into it. Iselilja (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy decline. It has been less than 24 hours since the block was placed, and the closing statement stated a minimum of 6 months before appeal. If you think the closer evaluated the consensus in that discussion incorrectly, you can appeal that at WP:AN, but it's premature to consider an unblock request. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of thread closers doing this crap. These "no appeals" conditions are not binding. They never have been binding. Consensus can change. It can change within minutes of a close. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and thread closures do not have the finality that judicial judgments do. Even then, appeals in fact should come very quickly after a final decision, rather than waiting for the status quo to change. And by "appeal", I'm using the term in its legal sense, rather than the improper sense it tends to be used around here (i.e., to describe a WP:SO request). This is not a request for sanctions to be lifted, it is a challenge to the propriety of the sanction and the discussion that led to the sanction. Thus, no, this should not be speedily closed. These sorts of threads, in fact, should never be speedily closed. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)