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 oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org 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

Contents

A35821361 is NOTHERE[edit]

Hello, this is pretty much my first time posting at ANI. Basically, A35821361 seems to be only here to criticise the Baha'i Faith and to attack it. His response to being blocked for edit warring was to blame the "members of the Baha'i Faith" for it. He also complained about how "While 36 hours is a brief time to be banned, this complaint is a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith on those who wish to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order" -- quote from the diff I've linked to, [1], I humbly submit this editor is clearly NOTHERE. I'm sorry for how poor my post looks...just not the best at this.79.66.4.79 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, your diff doesn't work, and I can't figure out what you intended. Please create a diff the way it says here. Also, it might be useful to mention which article he was edit warring on. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

Fixed the diff, and A35821361 was edit-warring on the Baha'i Faith page. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A diff from May is not indicative of a current problem. However, poking into User:A35821361's contrib history, I'm not sure WP:NOTHERE is the right issue, but it does look like A35821361 is hostile to Baha'i, and is prone to edit-warring. I don't want to step into this mess, but think some admin or another should. They should probably also notify the user. Argyriou (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like to thank Argyriou (talk) for mentioning my username here, otherwise I would have no inkling that this discussion was underway. In any case, it is true that I frequently contribute to topics related to the Bahá'í Faith. As my contributions are sourced from objective, third-party references they are not always in concordance with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá'í Administrative Order. This has often led to the reversion of these contributions and allegations that they are somehow "hostile," when in fact they are unbiased. If you read the continuation of the quote which 79.66.4.79 (talk) has linked to above, it continues, "In fact, this intimidation has led several prominent academics to leave or be ex-communicated by the Bahá'í Administrative Order (see Juan Cole, Abbas Amanat, Denis MacEoin, and Ehsan Yarshater)." It saddens me that these tactics are now attempted in Wikipedia. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Not a wikipedia contributor, but just thought i'd chime in to say that some of your first contributions included an entirely uncited claim that Baha'u'llah sold slaves to pay off debts with zero sources, neutral or hostile, given. Getting better at finding citations to support an editorial agenda does not make that editorial agenda cease to exist. None of those academics was actually excommunicated or claimed to have been excommunicated, the closest thing would be Juan Cole claiming to have been threatened with excommunication (with the only source for that claim being Cole himself).UrielvIII (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
"Not a Wikipedia editor", indeed, considering that was your first edit. How did you find your way here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I lurk pages I'm interested in, (feel I don't have the writing/citing ability to contribute up to wiki standards though), user in question is a fairly active contributor in a lot of them so I've been lurking his contribution log as well (apologies if that's against wikipedia policy. Feel free to delete if it is).UrielvIII (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A35 certainly seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have a theory as to why he so antagonistic to Baha'i, but that would be casting aspersions. Suggest a topic ban. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP you're using began editing today, but you've been around: you know about WP:casting aspersions, for instance. If you have an account your normally edit with, you should have filed this complaint with that account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I previously brought this up at the noticeboard here and got no response. I later tried more specific complaints about biographies of living persons here and here, also with no response. I think A35821361 was successful at scaring away any admins from looking past the surface by simply declaring himself to be unbiased. Anyone looking through edits and talk pages would recognize deception, but that takes time. The edit warring on biographies of living persons is still ongoing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome anyone to look at my edit and contribution history to Wikipedia, and compare it to the edit and contribution history of other editors on the same articles. Aside from being sourced from objective, third party sources, my edits and contributions are entirely compliant with the guidelines of Wikipedia. On the other hand, one should consider what the objectives of some of the other editors are. For example, Cuñado ☼ - Talk has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and called me a "deceitful attacker" on my talk page. More recently, there has been systematic reversions and deletions to the biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing institution of the Bahá'í Faith whose decisions are deemed infallible by believers. The reason given for these reversions and deletions are that the members of the Universal House of Justice lack notability, when in fact in addition to their religious service to the Bahá'í Administrative Order many these individuals have led successful careers as academics, authors, artists, actors, and the heads of award-winning NGOs. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC).
This is comical. If there is an admin listening I'd be happy to lay out in detail why A35821361's last comment is deception (maybe delusion?) in line with how he has behaved for the last 9 months. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, the article for Thornton Chase and the discussion for the AfD is demonstrative. Thornton Chase was an insurance salesman and is only covered in subjects relating to his position as the first convert to the Bahá’í Faith in the United States to have remained a Bahá’í. He does not pass any other notability guideline. None of the coverage is independent, as it all comes from Bahá’í sources, and priod to the AfD proposal almost entirely from one book written by a Bahá’í. This contrasts sharply with the articles of the members of Universal House of Justice members that have been systematically deleted, which were sourced from multiple different sources regarding various accomplishments of the individuals covered in their respective articles. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC).
Simply false. The biographies were stuffed with references that don't mention the person. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
A cursory look at Thornton Chase's article shows citations from a large number of independent newspapers. A skim of the contents of the article also shows that it covers his notable service in the Civil War. (although from the talk page these may have been added recently). By contrast the article for one House of Justice member, Stephen Birkland, contains citations exclusively from either Baha'i sources or Juan Cole, a former Baha'i who leveled accusations of misconduct against Birkland (the article that is not by a Baha'i or Cole only mentions Birkland by citing Cole's statements). Neither of those sources are neutral third parties. In any case the article only contains three paragraphs and could easily be merged into a larger article which is why I assume it would have been deleted (although I can't say that for certain) UrielvIII (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
To be fair the Chase article has been developed a ton since it was nominated. But A35821361's skills as a researcher and knowledge are far from mundane. I didn't have to look hard at all for many obvious third party sources. And that's aside from simply looking at the footnotes of Dr. Stockman's research. A35821361 didn't bother while he/she is perfectly willing to spend a great deal of time researching very obscure people for possible personal relationships to other things and beyond. In short he'd rather delete the article on Chase and work on some of these others even if many people agree that Chase is notable and the others several people have found unfounded. Smkolins (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
That's his prerogative to work on whatever he wants. There is nothing wrong with nominating for deletion. BTW, great job improving the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've always tried to research up rather than dismiss down. It's odd to me that he creates the Robert Stockman article and then dismisses a key subject of Stockman's research for decades. Smkolins (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
For added context, it appears the user in question has posted to the following website accusing people of censoring him: https://bahaicensorship.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/bahai-faith-and-slavery-an-example-of-how-bahais-control-information-on-wikipedia/

The most obvious differences between the version of the article in the link and the current "censored" version on wikipedia are that the entirely unreferenced and unsupported claims that Baha'u'llah sold a slave to pay off debts and that attempts were made to have the book 'Black Pearls' suppressed have been removed.

My own thoughts from some browsing the talk pages of some of the more contentious Baha'i articles are that terms like 'official narrative' and 'excommunication' have been used which paints a picture of a point of view being oppressed and marginalized. However repeatedly editing pages to add content deleted/edited by others, dropping out of discussions on said edits/deletions rather than arguing ones point of view until an agreement is reached and adding inflammatory uncited information an is not a reasonable way to participate in a collaborative project.

To my knowledge Baha'is don't actually hold any positions of authority over wikipedia, with everyone being on more or less equal footing, making accusations of censorship and prosletyzing on a third party website seem counterproductive if the goal is to contribute to an unbiased tone on wikipedia. UrielvIII (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time I have heard of this web page. The content therein I had shared on Reddit, relating to a discussion on Bahá’í censorship and information control. The owner of the web site you linked to must have cut-and-paste the content from Reddit into his website. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Which website it was published to is largely irrelevant. You have complained that you have been called a 'deceitful attacker' and your edits interpreted as hostile on wikipedia, while leveling similar accusations against people you're in disagreement with on an entirely different website rather than raising the issue in the context of an article or with wikipedia adminsUrielvIII (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, upon reading the nothere rules, your articles claims of a cadre devoted to eliminating facts to proselytize is an accusation of a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia", something against wikipedias rules. If this 'cadre' does not actually exist (which in my opinion it does not) then editing with the intention of combating their 'official narrative' would in itself constitute a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia".UrielvIII (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
My contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves. Where appropriate, I have engaged other editors in discussions on talk pages in relevant topics and articles, and if you have read them, you will note that topics such as Bahá’í review, censorship, information control, and the posthumous editing of literature[1] have on occasion been discussed when relevant. What is ironic is that the endeavor of building a comprehensive encyclopedia is undermined not by my efforts but by those of individuals who engage in such practices as ensuring third-party referenced information is eliminated to bring articles in-line with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá’í Administrative Order and by their wholesale deletion of the articles related to the individual members of the Universal House of Justice under the pretenses (in my opinion wholly false) that these individuals do not meet notability standards. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Salisbury, Vance (1997). "A Critical Examination of 20th-Century Baha'i Literature". Bahá'í Library Online. Retrieved December 8, 2016. 
Just because you keep saying that you're crusading against an "officially sanctioned narrative" with unbiased edits doesn't make it true. Accusing people of deleting under false pretenses is casting aspersions. UrielvIII (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
For added context here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_slavery&oldid=737879646 is one of your first contributions which was edited, it includes these sentences with no citations:
"Bahá'u'lláh officially condemned slavery in 1874, by which time he had actually sold a slave to pay debts.", "a book that, despite efforts at censorship by the Bahá'í Administrative Order, was published by the independent Bahá'í publishing company Kalimát Press.". Your inclusion of these false and baseless claims with no sources shows that at the very least you haven't always been committed to defending third-party sourcing, although your commitment to 'exposing' the "officially sanctioned narrative" has remained constant, sources or no. UrielvIII (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Also for context, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustavo_Correa talkpage on one of the UHJ articles includes a discussion from a month ago of your sourcing, where you're accused of misrepresenting what your cited sources contain. You have not tried to contest the accusation. UrielvIII (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
And for even more context, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A35821361#Good_morning discussion on your talk page pretty much sums up every other discussion you've had regarding your Members of the UHJ pages, you only imply that the fact you are correct is self evident, offer very little reasoning for why that is the case and then drop out of the discussion when counterpoints are raised. That behaviour is not conducive to cooperatively making an encyclopedia.
Your lack of willingness to co-operate with certain editors may be tied to your accusations in your article (linked above) of a secret cadre existing to proselytize on wikipedia, so we're back to that point you didn't address. If you are actively seeking to combat a group is that not a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia"? Conspiracy theories about the Bahá’í Administrative Order pushing a narrative don't prove that you are unbiased, if anything, the fact you bring them up to justify your edits makes you seem very biased. UrielvIII (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Among the examples of problems that may be of interest in this thread is:

  • lacking responding to the points raised in edit comments about material attributed to living people. See my edits for example at [2]. It was my understanding that rather than leave the contentious material in the article and tag it with a citation discussion that material on living people should be deleted and discussed to reach consensus. The discussion went precisely nowhere. And this is related to a network of articles that push something A358 really wants out there, judging from the level of engagement, against the input of multiple editors and been going on for a long time.
  • There has also been some mis-attibution of sources in the case of the Kiser Barnes article and was part of the discussion of why that article was deleted. See [3]. A358 did not participate but the matter was acted on.
The issues related to the Kiser Barnes article that was deleted have been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960#Biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice as well as User talk:A35821361#Biographies and in the related material discussed on the talk pages of several of the other members of the Universal House of Justice including Farzam Arbab, Gustavo Correa, and Paul Lample. I apologies if it appeared to you that I was disinterested in the issues that led to the deletion of the Kiser Barnes article. Far from it. I would wish that article had not been deleted, as had the articles for Glenford Eckleton Mitchell, Douglas Martin (Bahá'í), and David Ruhe. I further wish the bulk of material had not been injudiciously removed from the articles for Farzam Arbab, Gustavo Correa, and Paul Lample. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Once again here and in the linked discussions you haven't addressed any of the counterpoints explaining why the article should have been removed, instead just saying and that the removal is unjust. No proof, just flowery language. UrielvIII (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
To get specific, on the linked discussion on your user talk page your edits are stated to have violated policy, your response is to state that you have addressed it on the talk pages of those articles. An example of such a discussion is present on the Gustavo Correa talk page, which I have mentioned in another post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustavo_Correa. Your 'addressing' of the points consists of saying your sources are third party, saying they mention the subject or their work with no reasoning or actual discussion of why that is the case, and then not responding when you are accused of misrepresenting what your sources contain.
When the point of the bulk your 'third-party' sources not mentioning the person is raised in the discussion your user talk page you respond by entirely changing the subject, completely ignoring the accusation, and accusing Cunado of hypocrisy for starting the pages ten years ago and then stating he wants them deleted now. You have not, as of yet, addressed Cunado's explanation of his change in position, or the original point of your third-party sources being irrelevant to the subject of the articles. UrielvIII (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


As another example of your unwillingness to support your position in discussions of wikipedia policy is discussion of your most recent edits on the 'Criticism of the Baha'i Faith': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_the_Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith Here it is stated that there is no notable criticism of the Faiths position on abortion, your response is to restate your own criticisms of the Faiths stance of abortions. I believe that your edits of this page, and discussion on the talk page show your attitude is that of someone attempting to use wikipedia as a soapbox.
My reasoning for this belief is that you essentially added your own personal interpretation of Baha'i scripture to a page, a direct quote: "but there are a few statements by its founders that raise some controversy by contradicting some current scientific understanding." (notably there is no citation of where this criticism comes from, presumably as it is your opinion), and your response to the question of whether this criticism was notable enough for inclusion on the talkpage was to double down on explaining why your interpretation is valid. While this is the most egregious example of your commitment to pushing an agenda (even here you have basically acknowledged you have an agenda of opposing the "Officially sanctioned narrative", justifying it as correcting a bias (with no reasoning) rather than denying you have an agenda), I believe this attitude is present in the majority of your edits, which (while I'm no expert) I think is against wikipedia guidelines UrielvIII (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps people specialized in editing articles on living people should weigh in rather us having to deal with accusations like "those of individuals who engage in such practices as ensuring third-party referenced information is eliminated to bring articles in-line with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá’í Administrative Order and by their wholesale deletion of the articles related to the individual members of the Universal House of Justice under the pretenses (in my opinion wholly false) that these individuals do not meet notability standards." Smkolins (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC) I beleive the point of this thread is whether WP:NOTHERE applies to User:A35821361. I'd entertain discussion of that. User:A35821361 - care to chime in on those points? Smkolins (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo[edit]

Summary of the request[edit]

Because of an original content dispute, XIIIfromTokyo has artificially created a discussion on antisemitism, and another one on homophobia, and has blatantly deformed my answers to say I am antisemitic and homophobic, and is repetiting these claims since December 2016 and on different pages in spite of my defense and other contributors' intervention. On top of that, he is doing intimidation, by telling me the press could talk about this and with legal threats to we do not know who. When I try to alert about this, he is changing the subject into a content dispute (talking about the content dispute, the French wikipedia article he wrote, his disputes there, comparison between articles, etc.), even though the content disputes are irrelevant here. When I try to tell him to stop calling me these things and threatening me, he is talking about the articles, and when I try to talk about the articles, he answers with these attacks. And he persists in this attitude in spite of all the warnings.

The content of the articles are off-topic here, but I worked on multiple articles and XIII – who has a tendency to paranoia (sorry for the use of the term) – is focusing on two of them to try to show a imaginary bias (even though I have been discussing with other editors on articles, and we managed to have consensus; these two articles were different and needed different answers, as talk pages and administrators decisions show), is doing every personal attacks to fulfill his imaginary purpose. He has been obviously wrongfully accusing me of antisemitism and homophobia, and attacking and threatening me for 10 months in talk pages. I do not feel safe contributing because these long-going attacks are very hurtful, they have been going on for a long time in spite of every call to stop and they will continue unless the user is banned.

--Launebee (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Detailed request and quotes[edit]

Dear administrators,

XIIIfromTOKYO has been accusing me of antisemitism, homophobia a bit everywhere since last year, and I cannot use a talk page without him going back to these outragious accusations. On top of that, he has been threatening me and constantly using an aggressive language.


ACCUSATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM

Original context

The first student association of Panthéon-Assas University is – at least on Facebook – a Jewish association, UEJF (Union des Étudiants Juifs de France) Assas. Because of that, someone tagged the door of this association office inside the university with a swastika, and the university and the student association asked the public prosecutor to bring charges.

XIII seems to have something against this university, so he is behaving aggressively to change the article, and another institution (this time in favor of it) because he considers they are rivals.

Among many misuse of sources, he gave many articles which related the swastika incident, and others (policemen had been put in the 1990s to protect the university from violent groups, like other Parisian universities). He was saying that it shows that the university has a tradition of antisemitism and racism and of beating (ratonnade) Jews and foreigners! I kindly explained, and wrote in particular: "What you are quoting (some fights sometimes near the university) is not at all what you are saying, ie foreigners and Jews being commonly beaten up in PA (ratonnades) or PA as an institution having or having the reputation to have an enduring tradition of racism and antisemitism!"[4] He was talking of beating people out of racism and antisemitism, so I said that it is absolutely false that foreigners and Jews are beaten up in one of the top institutions of France.


Accusation 1

He deformed what I said and answered:

Copy/pasted quoting
Why are you refering to jew students as "foreigners" ? World War II is over, and you can still be French and jew. You should start to really carefully care about the words you use. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not write that at all, what you are writing is absolutely outrageous! […]
--Launebee (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I explained that I obviously did not write that, but he is continuing since then to write on different pages I intervene that I wrote anti-Semitic things, or to imply I am a neo-nazi, so that I continuously have to defend myself, and so that the wrong is already done with other users.


Accusation 2 [5]

Copy/pasted quoting
You have used to word "foreigners" to described thoses students, victims of racism and antisemitism. This kind of speech in France is deeply connected to far-right movements, and is considered as hate-speech. You say that you know a lot of things about France, so that's definitely something that you can't ignore. You are responsible for what you say. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I clearly did not describe Jews as foreigners. Your attack is absolutely despicable. --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


Accusation 3 [6]

Copy/pasted quoting
You are calmly describing victims of antisemitism and racism as "foreigners". […]
Did I miss something ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? […] --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


Accusation 4 [7]

Copy/pasted quoting
So now there is a strong Jewish community in this college. Do you have a reference to back that claim, or is that from your personnal experience or préjugés ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


Accusation 5 [8]

Copy/pasted quoting
I have read with some supprise that, according to Launebee, this university

has a strong jewish community

. Is that again your point of view about jew students, or do you have serious references about that ?

Needless to say that after your previous statement, and your rewritting of the article of a well-know "néo-nazi" association[9], you might need to start to carefully chose the words you use. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I already gave you the reference. It is simply the first student association on Facebook. Please stop these continuing outrageous accusations. --Launebee (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


Accusation 6 [10]

Copy/pasted quoting
So again, you don't a reference to provide, and that's only your opinion that you are voicing about the jewish community.
Refrain from that activity, and stick to the references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not something written in the article. I was just answering you, since you implied outrageous things. Stop this disruptive activity. --Launebee (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


I am personally an indirect victim of the Jewish genocide, and I repetitively have to deal with things linked to it in my life, I feel deeply outraged by these constant accusations.

I hope the severity of the sanction to XIII will show that Wikipedia is not taking antisemitism lightly, and that you cannot constantly attack the honour of a contributor by playing with this despicable thing.


ACCUSATIONS OF HOMOPHOBIA


The same system: he transformed something, put it everywhere so I constantly have to defend myself of this accusation.


Original context

Richard Descoings died in mysterious circumstances. He was homosexual and married, and it was controversial. Many newspapers, including gay community newspapers, talked about it.[11][12][13][14][15]) I used in the Sciences Po article the wording used in his article at that time [16], ie that he had a "controversial gay lifestyle", and for example anti-homophobic articles say it was, but it should not be. It was the beginning of constant accusations of homophobia by XIIIfromTokyo.


Accusation 1 [17]

Copy/pasted quoting
You made the choice to put homophobic slurs in the article. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
You insisted I said antisemitic things, now you are saying I am writing homophobic things! There is nothink homophobic about saying his gay lifestyle is controvesial, on the contrary. See for example this newspaper article saying that his gay lifestyle was taboo and is denouncing the fact it had to be.
Can someone stop these insults toward me?
--Launebee (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


Accusation 2 [18]

Copy/pasted quoting
You are calmly putting homophic slurs in {{Sciences Po]]' article. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? […] --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Homophobic slurs in the Sciences Po article? XIIIfromTOKYO, Launebee hasn't touched the Sciences Po article since September of this year. You're either referring to the talk page (in which case point me to the discussion/comment) or a very old edit to the article (in which case I'll need a diff please). The only other alternative is that you mean Pantheon-Assas' article or talk (in which case diff again please). Otherwise, the claim of homophobia is a brightline violation of NPA policy and I'm going to ask that you strike it. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

XIII never stroke his comment or answered this.


Bad "jokes" [19][20]

One resistant during WW2 accused Sciences Po to have been a place of Collaboration during WW2.

With no link, an article from the Independant says that the system in which is Sciences Po is a machine to produce a "blinkered, often arrogant and frequently incompetent ruling freemasonry".

XIII mixed these things, as such:

Copy/pasted quoting
So now we have to explain that this school is "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys. 718smiley.svg
And could you remove the smileys? The nazi regime and the collaboration is something serious, not a joke! He obviously changes the meaning of the texts: freemasonery obviously means here a "cast", not actual freemasonery. --Launebee (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


Copy/pasted quoting

As I have already mentioned, when I saw that this school was targeted because it was the lair "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys... well. Time for the arbcom to work ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The kind of criticism you are talking about is your invention. And If there are so many references, it is because you are denying the serious criticism. --Launebee (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


Accusation 3 [21]

Copy/pasted quoting
Let me remind you that you wrote your opinion about Richard Descoing alleged homosexuality and drug usein the Sciences Po article : "an overdose linked to his controversial gay livestyle" [22]. None of what you wrote a few month ago was backed by the reference your provided back then [23]. I'm just trying to prevent and other accident.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


THREATS

XIII wants me to stop editing, otherwise he is implying he could create a media turmoil with what he accused me in talk pages. Sometimes in French so that other users cannot understand.


Threat 1 [24]

Copy/pasted quoting

All the process is public, so your actions here […] will be available to anyone. Contributors, journalists... XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


Threat 2 [25]

Copy/pasted quoting

Tu es bien conscient que tout es public, et que n'importe qui peut poster ça sur Twitter […] (avec tout le basard médiatique à prévoir vu certaines expressions utilisées en PDD ) ?

Translation: You are well aware that everything is public, and that anyone can post in on Twitter […] (with all the media fuss to come due to some expression used in talk page (PDD = page de discussion).

Those "expressions used" are obviously from him.


Threats 3 and 4: legal threats [26][27]

These threats are not necessarily directed to me, but I signal that, as EdJohnston pointed out[28], XIII is doing legal threats now, by calling someone - so potentially anyone who disagrees with him - a "criminal".

Copy/pasted quoting
The article has been protected. Sad to see that a criminal is using such a method to harrass an other contributors. Sad and disgusting. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


Copy/pasted quoting
EdJohnston one contributor clearly wants to harrass other contributors, and went so far as using a lot of SPA in the past ; this week's use of no less than 4 IPs to revert templates saying that this article was written like an advert clearly shows that any method, including criminal ones can be used by this individual, on group of indivudials. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your reference to 'criminal' behavior above sounds to me like making legal threats. You were previously blocked for edit warring in April 2017 which should have made you aware of the sort of behavior we consider problematic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


CONSTANT ABUSIVE AND AGRESSIVE LANGUAGE

XIII has very often an abusive language toward me. I have been answering his repetitive personal attacks and repetitive arguments for more than a year, but even if I keep civil, he always turns it into personal attacks. I give just two examples among many.


Example 1: abusive language[29]

Copy/pasted quoting

[…] It is off-topic. We are talking about reputation here, and since the source was in French, I just explained. --Launebee (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC) […] You are lying to an other contributor just to try to gain some time. It's relevant because it shows that you know that you are lying when you write this article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


Example 2: repetitive claim I did a legal threat [30][[31]

Because I was discussing the fact saying PA has an racist tradition is libelous, which is not a legal threat according to Wikipedia policy ("A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat."[32] He has been reminded it is not a legal threat by other contributors but he continues to claim everywhere I did legal threat.

Copy/pasted quoting
That's clearly an intimidation attempt. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
No it's not […]. Discussing or declaring something to be libelous is not in itself a legal threat. Not a legal threat; "This is libelous". […] Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Copy/pasted quoting
I already had to face legal threat from this contributor, so any administrator has to be aware that it could accur to him or her as well. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There are many examples.


GENERAL

This attitude does not seem to be new. XIIIfromTokyo has already been blocked in French Wikipedia three days for "personal attacks and insults" and two weeks for "intimidation attempt or harassment". [33]

There already has been requests here, but discussions were blurred in content discussion over Panthéon-Assas University and Sciences Po. Now, PA article has many sources, and Mr rnddude helped resolve the issues, and there has been a consensus on the lead of Sciences Po, with Robminchin helping. But XIII accusations are continuing, and it is becoming worse and worse.

Whatever the content dispute is, XIII is constant me insulting me by asserting or strongly implying that I am linked to antisemitism or neo-nazism. I repeat what I wrote: I am personally an indirect victim of the Jewish genocide, and I repetitively have to deal with things linked to it in my life, I feel deeply outraged by these constant accusations of antisemitism. I hope the severity of the sanction to XIII will show that Wikipedia is not taking antisemitism lightly, and that you cannot constantly attack the honour of a contributor by playing with this despicable thing.

To show the gravity of such accusations, I hope, on top of public apologies by him, at least a one-year ban will be decided (and a total ban if he does not apologise).

Regards,

--Launebee (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


Discussion[edit]

  • Purely for the administrative purpose of being able to parse out and read this thread (and hopefully to avoid some serious TLDR) I have removed all of the quotes, replacing them either the relevant diffs or links. I have also removed the silly number of subheaders. I took every effort to not actually remove any content added by Launebee. If someone feels this decision was improper they are welcome to replace it with the original content, which can be found here. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I kept the subheaders removed, but put back the quotes, because the sentences are to be found inside long texts, so specific quotes are needed. Your version without the quotes is to found here. Thanks for your help. --Launebee (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I've collapsed the quotes, since that's kind of the point of a collapse template. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want to point out the text, you could use the tq template. The tq template highlights quoted text in green, and looks like this: (text being quoted). This might be a better alternative to hatted boxes. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Primefac and Blackmane. Perhaps now is a good compromise, and I hope I will never have again to do this, but if I have to use quotes in the future I will think at the tq templates. I am sorry there are so many examples, but it is because I have been so many times attacked. I added a summary in the beginning, it seems it was needed. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Noting that the reported user has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on the aforementioned article. ansh666 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • When a user has been advised repeatedly that he is making false accusations, and yet persists in repeating the accusations, we have a problem. The subject of this complaint hasn't made many contributions, but he has exacted long-term abuse against a good faith editor. Frankly, I don't see a convincing reason why we need to retain this editor as a member of our community. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: Is there something I can do to get this going somewhere? Otherwise, the harassment and threats will continue. --Launebee (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. I suspect people have been put off by the sheer size of your original post, which far exceeds the usual length. I do hope, however, that a couple of admins would be willing to take a look at this and determine what action should be taken. Lepricavark (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I put more clearly that there is a summary above. Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@power~enwiki: Thanks for your help. Actually, the summary of my message is more that because of a content dispute, XIII created a discussion on antisemitism and then used my answer to claim antisemitism, and has repeated these claims since last December, that he did the same thing with homophobia, that he has been threatening me several times and is constantly aggressive. The content dispute is not relevant here, whatever it is, it has been ten months that I am repetitively wrongfully accused of these things by this user, even though it is obviously absolutely false. (Note also that this user is the principal writer of the French page of that university, so this is not a reference. XIII is precisely blurring the discussion by talking of what happens in the French page that he wrote, or of the content dispute, but all of that is irrelevant. This is a different subject with a talk page, but that talk page is now filled with personal attacks.) I added a summary in the beginning of the request, thanks for the idea. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOCK and WP:SPA at torrent articles[edit]

There is an ongoing problem at these articles: IsoHunt, KickassTorrents and Torrent Project‎. Someone keeps on changing the URLs despite being asked not to do it and the articles being semi-protected recently. It's particularly annoying because it is being done by new user accounts which seem to be a WP:SPA for doing this. Help requested here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Investigation opened: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marylucygril. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The pages have also been semiprotected. If there is further disruption related to this, please advise at the SPI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Still looking but I can tell you that at least one account is cross wiki spamming right now as seen here. We need this link added to the meta blacklist. Beetstra are you around?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter: I'm around. Can you give me all domains? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Are these the 4 domains in above tracking templates? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes that's them, Dirk. I'll list the links within the SPI reports in the future per your comments there. Stewards have locked the accounts due to cross-wiki abuse.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter: Added to meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban by User:Johnvr4[edit]

At [34], [35], and [36] Johnvr4 has violated his topic ban - to avoid editing subjects connected to weapons and Japan, broadly construed - twice within about 24 hours of its imposition. He also appears to have said at his talk page that he intends to continue editing irrespective of the topic ban [37]. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Based on his airing of woes at [38], the last thing he should be doing right now is editing Wikipedia. Support an indef block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Support indef block, as clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for six months. When someone's been here for 5½ years, it's rather a stretch to say that he's NOTHERE. Since all his previous blocks, put together, add up to ten days and change, going straight to an indef block is extreme, and I don't think this is an extreme situation that needs an extreme response. Since he's allowed to appeal in six months, I figured I'd just do a block for that long; he may appeal it as soon as the block expires. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
To be fair to him, even though I have no reason to be since he openly lambasted me for his own actions, an appeal will certainly fail if he remains blocked the entire duration of his topic ban. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
That escalated quickly. I was going to propose leniency based on having just been kicked in the face by Hurricane Irma, but when someone's been here 5½ years, it's rather a stretch to say they don't know how a topic ban works, especially when another admin made such an effort to explain it and they posted this diatribe in response to a warning to stop violating it. Citing WP:IAR as a justification for ban evasion is a new one for me. I don't know the history here but in the interest of the leniency I started talking about, can I propose significantly shortening this block (say, 2 weeks?) since it's a first for evasion, with the topic ban timer reset from the end of the block? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I can appreciate your motivation, Ivanvector, but the messages I saw posted give great pause to endorse any shortening of the block period. Assuming good faith, someone with this editor's RL challenges probably shouldn't be concerning themselves with the project. Should they be able to assemble some reasonable request I might be persuaded to reconsider. Tiderolls 18:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
"Evasion" really isn't the right word, I think; "ban evasion" to me means getting around a ban, not outright rejecting it and editing as if it didn't exist. IAR really is okay for certain ban-ignoring or -evading situations, e.g. if you're I-banned from someone who starts replacing the Main Page with obscenities, it's perfectly fine to leave a note at WP:BN requesting emergency desysop for the obviously compromised account. However, saying "I won't pay attention to this ban because it's intended to prevent me from improving Wikipedia" is quite different, since there's already consensus that your edits aren't an improvement. If this editor were somehow unaware of the ban or unaware that he was violating it, a short block would be appropriate after a warning, but since he's outright said that he's going to ignore it, we're in a different situation here. Bans are placed when we think you can't contribute positively in some manner but you shouldn't be blocked because you can still contribute overall, and if you demonstrate that the ban isn't preventing disruption, it's time to escalate to the next level of preventiveness. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, mostly. My only concern as a disinterested observer to this drama is that it appears that Johnvr4 is in exceptionally reasonable circumstances to be blowing off steam, for which we usually grant some latitude so long as no disruption is occurring, and I don't think it was outside of his diatribe (and before he was warned). Yeah, he swore up and down that he's definitely not going to respect the ban, but we didn't really give him a chance. I guess Tide rolls makes a good point: if Johnvr4 comes back after some reasonable time and/or after their probably very serious real-life concerns are under control and makes a reasonable unblock request, we can talk about it then. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to a reasonable unblock request. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated large deletion, with sockpuppetry[edit]

(non-admin closure) All these, and others, have been blocked as socks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joeyburton489, with a history of 2 edits, deleted 3,075 bytes from Cognate, with the edit comment

There is no cognates within the same language. Cognates are words derived from different languages.

CodeCat reverted the change within an hour. Then Leonardomicheli297 (1 edit) repeated the deletion, with the identical change comment.

A sockpuppeteer is unlikely to engage in civil discussion. I am going to inform the user on both of these talk pages, but beyond that I request admin assistance here.--Thnidu (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The quacking is strong with these ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Johnsondrake2607 is probably the same editor too - see their restoration of Joeyburton489's reverted edit on Doublet (linguistics). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The three accounts were created closely together in time:
  • Joeyburton489 - 18:37 19 September - 2 minutes before making their first edit, to Cognate [39]
  • Leonardomicheli - 19:53 19 September - 2 minutes before restoring Jayburton489's edit to Cognate [40]
  • Johnsondrake2607 - 22:23 19 September - 1 minute before restoring Joeyburton489's edit to Doublet (linguistics) [41]
Clearly sockpuppets created specifically for the purpose of restoring reverted edits. Can we get some blocks here, or do I really need to file an SPI for such an obvious and trivial case? (SPI being prety badly backed up). I don't think a CU is needed, given that my ears are bleeding from the quacking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty suspicious. Just the same, I can think of a sort of believable explanation for it. I asked Joey on his talk page for his own explanation. If someone else wants to block, that's fine, but I guess I'd like to hear what Joey says before I do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just noting that the section in question directly contradicts the second sentence of the article's lede and none of its sources employ the term "cognate". – Uanfala 12:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, there hasn't been any response yet to my question on Joey's talk page. I didn't want to hand them any excuses, but my thinking was that this could be a class project of some sort. This might explain why a few new users would appear out of nowhere. It wouldn't excuse the edit warring, of course. I guess someone can ping me if the disruption continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand your caution, but I think it's highly unlikely to be a class, given the timing of the creation of the accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: On doublet (linguistics),we see Salamanderman4197, Justjared2168Tommypinket3987‎ Jojimans347Johnnybling7431, and the ever-popular Johnsondrake2607. Pretty clear pattern here. Anmccaff (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Midght wanna throw @JoeSwatsonWattsonn5: in the creel, too. Anmccaff (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Additional socks have been found by the checkuser and confirmed. This thread can probably be closed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Basing articles on a person's Linkedin / Twitter accounts[edit]

THis article Jen Royle disclosing a person's birth date and other personal details based on her Linkedin / Twitter account. Where do we stand on this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB GMGtalk 17:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Have nominated for delete
The other question is where do we stand on WP:OUTING? Is adding details about a person based on their personal linkedin, FB, and twitter account outing?
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm... not sure outing applies unless you're talking about an editor. As a general rule, the information is okay if it is otherwise public information on a moderately public figure, like something a reporter posted on their public social media. This information is sometimes removed by request as a courtesy, but if they've put it out there themselves, it's only a courtesy, and not an outright privacy issue. GMGtalk 18:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I guess I would add that the key to selfpub there is that it needs to be mundane personal details, the kind for which self published material would be a (and perhaps the only in many cases) reliable source. GMGtalk 18:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would say no. They published it (presumably) on the selfpub site, thus it's not private info. We shouldn't be repeating it (WP:RS) but it's not outing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't be repeating it That's not quite right. If the material is sufficiently mundane so as to fall under SELFPUB, then the self published source can be treated as a primary source, in accordance with guidance at WP:PRIMARY. GMGtalk 18:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information we say "Posting... "personal information" is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia... This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors." From what I understand we only allow personal information based on high quality sources not a subjects's personal accounts. If someone was to create an article about a Wikipedian based on their FB, Twitter, and Linkedin details that would definitely be outing and I guess the question is do we want to apply this standard to none editors? If we do not want to apply this standard to none editors than we need to remove "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors." from the outing policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  • An article on a Wikipedian based on (nothing but) LinkedIn etc. will be speedily deleted--either as A7 or as a BLP/outing violation. PS Doc, it's time wrote you up... Drmies (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • User:Drmies not sure to what you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, your cigar lounge seems to be taking off and might pass the GNG... Drmies (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
        • It was an interesting link, a cigar lounge that tries to look upscale, but has staff, or at least web site developers, that can't spell "Andalusian" right, and believe that Davidoff is located in Geneva, NY, probably never even having heard of Switzerland. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Ah certainly. Yes and if I add to my twitter account that I own it than that will make it legit right :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there some reason the AfD is not sufficient and we need an AN/I as well? This has the appearance of heavy-handedness.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The harassment policy does not apply to subjects of biographies. It cannot, because as written it prohibits any personal info of anyone unless they post it on Wikipedia first. Which would mean most personal life sections and basic biographical info. This has been pointed out to the people who have been arguing over it for ages, suffice to say ignore that part of the policy if the person is the subject of an article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Only in death I have tagged that line in the OUTING policy as dubious and will ignore going forwards. Will trim personal links based on them simply not being reliable instead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
DJ: Just to be clear, as noted above, social media is considered reliable for mundane personal details as a primary source when they meet WP:SELFPUB and are treated in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. I don't mean to belabor the point, but if you get a mind to start removing anything that cites social media for a birthday or an alma mater you're gonna have a bad time. GMGtalk 21:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I would argue that the article was "primarily on such sources" however. Stuff like "She is single" supposedly based on a tweet still makes me a little uncomfortable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
primarily on such sources Yes, but that's expressly forbidden by WP:PRIMARY, thus the PRIMARY compliance caveat. GMGtalk 21:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it's worth pointing out that the statement "both editors and non-editors" in WP: Outing is a wikilink to WP: HNE, which in turn says "Content and sourcing that comply with the biographies of living persons policy do not violate this policy;" --Kyohyi (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
And that policy says "dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". I do not feel a single tweet counts as widely published or a reasonable assumption that the subject does not object. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
If the Tweet is from the subject, then I disagree. I think that "widely" only applies to "published by reliable sources", and not to "by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." If a person tweets their birthday, they've put it out onto the Internets with tacit permission to republish, and so it should be acceptable to use on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: if a person uses their verified Twitter account to tweet their birthday, is it acceptable for Wikipedia to use it? Some of your comments above imply that you do not agree, but it is not clear why. To me at any rate. MPS1992 (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes. It is acceptable, and routinely done. GMGtalk 20:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Gross incivility[edit]

I am reporting User:Ashwani8888 and unfortunately I think a block may be necessary.

This user has frequently made personal insults, especially to User:Luke Stark 96, who requested my support in this matter.

For example, see a number of recent instances on User_talk:Ashwani8888, as well as using the word b****** in this (non-recent) edit here.

As two of the most frequent contributors to List of most viewed YouTube videos, User:Luke Stark 96 and I have also found the majority of the edits by this user on this page to be factually inaccurate.

I warned this user I would report him if further insults occurred, and since then this user has made two further personal attacks. I have left a message on this user's talk page about this report. Tcamfield (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In addition to the PAs, I am concerned about the intent to edit war stated here [42]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Bastard" is not the same as "bitch", but still. Sure these are personal attacks and I can warn them for it. More importantly, can I see some evidence of those supposed invented numbers? That would be a more useful thing, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The connotation & severity of "bastard" is culturally dependent. It is particularly severe an insult in South Asian cultures; far less so in other parts of the Anglosphere. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Even if culturally dependant, and the edit Tornado chaser highlighted is over the line and demonstrates a battleground, retaliatory mentality. But I agree with Drmies that a warning is appropriate with the understanding that continuation would likely result in a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The user has since edited my first paragraph (on this page!) with his own message. I will leave it unaltered so you can see. Tcamfield (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • And I'll remove it. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

While this insult got the thread going, discussing its strength won't get anyone anywhere. The alleged factual inaccuracy of the user's edits is a pressing problem in an encyclopedia, and it's a pretty serious accusation. I have yet to see proof of it. If it turns out that the edits were not in fact inaccurate, then we may well be dealing with a seriously disgruntled editor who might actually have a case. So, Tcamfield, please provide some evidence. It needs no arguing that your opponent is acting like a jerk here. User:Ashwani8888, this idiotic edit alone might get you blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not something which I feel is outrageous vandalism which is why I only mentioned it in passing, but it is factually inaccurate and these sort of things mean that most of the user's edits have had to be reverted. This user edits List of most viewed YouTube videos and most of their edits involve moving "Shape of You" (currently 7th on the list) as it climbs up the list. (You are meant to update all the videos at once for consistency, but that's beside the point as many editors make this mistake and its forgiveable.) Unfortunately this user is too hasty on the edits. It is hard to show because the number of views is a moving target which can only be shown to be correct or incorrect at the time, but an example is here which was edited by this user 36 hours ago to show Shape of You as above Shake It Off. Shape of You only overtook Shake It Off about 12-16 hours ago. To see this now you have to find the two videos on YouTube and note the lead of about 2.8 million views at time of writing, then go on a website like | kworb and note that Shape of You is gaining c.5.5-6m views per day, while Shake It Off is down the list gaining just c.1m views per day. A bit of maths puts the overtake at about 12-16 hours ago. I can also confirm that the overtake was about 14 hours ago as I saw that the view counts were very close at the time.
It's a slightly laughable point compared to some bad cases of vandalism (and I certainly wouldn't call for a block for just this!) but as the page gets thousands of visits a day, it does have to be reverted which is how the whole threatening of edit wars and bad language etc kicked off. I am now of the opinion that User:Ashwani8888 deserves one more chance as they have shown some willingness to behave amenably with their latest comment on their talk page. Tcamfield (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm a little concerned about the WP:OR mentioned in the above comment. That being said, the reported editor really needs to knock it off, and the actual relative "strength" of the insult they used is completely immaterial. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll say that's not how we source the data in the article. In this instance, it's just the only way of showing what happened a number of hours after the fact. It does say in WP:OR: "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)"Tcamfield (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

He's doing the same thing on page List of most liked YouTube videos, for example here and here. Shape of You hasn't got 12.39 million likes, now the song has 12.35 million likes--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute + SPA + possible COI on journalist Kevin Deutsch[edit]

Hello,

I'd really prefer to be taking this to a different noticeboard to chat it out, but my compatriot has both indicated they are no longer interested in discussion and is also aggressively reverting. This relates to the article Kevin Deutsch (my preferred revision), a journalist and author who has been accused of being highly sloppy about sourcing and over-anonymizing events to the point of having no relation with the original event (at best), or of repeat fabrication and fraud (at worst).

User:Ballastpointed is aggressively editing Kevin Deutsch to fit his spin (sample diffs: 1, 2, 3, all within the space of ~24 hours). Ballastpointed is a single purpose account whose sole goal on Wikipedia seems to be to communicate what an awesome guy Deutsch is. He's denied being Deutsch himself or a friend/associate (diff), but he has claimed to be a super-expert on Deutsch (diff). At first, Ballastpointed was productively responding on the talk page to pings and somewhat ratcheting his claims downward - allowing hostile material to stand but rephrasing it, and many of these edits have been left in place (e.g. including this article which discusses the New York Daily News investigation into Deutsch's work). However, he's since gone back to just plain reverting to a version that is, in my opinion, not neutral (doesn't reflect the majority of the sources) and overly relies upon self-published sources (extensively citing Deutsch's website and Deutsch's personal explanations for the accusations against him in-line with other sources; example diff), and has thrown in WP:PEACOCK terms as well ("award-winning" in the lede, etc.).

I have done my part in talking it out on the talk page (see Talk:Kevin Deutsch), and offered to bring in a third opinion or discuss on a noticeboard (diff). Since Ballastpointed has responded to pings before, he saw this. He has not replied. If he isn't going to participate, there's no point in bringing this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. (I have also attempted to offer productive avenues for Ballastpointed to apply his preferred slant - if he could find some source, any source, that is not self-published but supports Deutsch's view of things. He has not really provided one, however; the closest is attempting to interpret the NY Daily News article as an exoneration of Deutsch, which it isn't.)

Note that this is a WP:BLP, so Ballastpointed is certainly correct that there should be a very high standard set for negative material. Unfortuantely for Deutsch, there is reams of negative material in reliable sources, and very little supportive material. His "15 year career in journalism" is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article (any more than any other of the many freelance journalists out there), and while Deutsch's own personal explanations and excuses for the sourcing confirmation problems deserve to be mentioned, they do not deserve to be taken as anything more than a denial - certainly in no way as "evidence" that somehow the investigations into him were faulty. Additionally, Ballastpointed has attempted to highlight the many small and noncontroversial articles that Deutsch wrote that weren't challenged, and imply this is somehow an exoneration of Deutsch. But these articles are simply not very notable nor interesting to talk about - as the Washington Post wrote, "Most mainstream news organizations would fire a journalist for a single instance of inventing a source or a quote, let alone dozens and dozens of them."

I ask that Ballastpointed be informed that he needs to comply with Wikipedia policies such as WP:SPS, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, or else have the page protected. If he wants to submit edit requests (a la COI accounts), that would be acceptable. If he doesn't respond at all and keeps edit warring, then he should be blocked. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sir,
You’ve repeatedly deleted my contributions to the page, adding innacuriate/non/factual synopses, ignoring due weight requirements, and inserting language that violates Wiki’s living persons policy. You are a newcomer to the page, and began your work here by reversing my contributions. Since then, I have attempted to correct the erroneous paraphrasing you’ve inserted, and to restore information you removed that was favorable to Mr. Deutsch. Your attempts to construe every line of coverage in the worst possible light deserves to be challenged, and it will continue to be, by myself and others. Perhaps most egregiously, you removed a NY Observer article written by Mr. Deutsch, which contains an extensive, closely reasoned defense/rebuttal. Additionally,
you removed key parts of his response to the Times’ findings and the favorable “no red flags” language in the Daily News finding. In short, you’ve removed everything exculpatory it favorable to Mr. Deutsch, and I submit that you, sir, are in fact the one with a conflict of interest and obvious agenda here.
Wherever there is an allegation, there should be a defense of that allegation if that defense has been published, which it has been. This is how the living person’s policy and due weight work. These are unsubstantiated allegations. The coverage has focused on the same series of allegations. Those allegations take up a majority of this article. I can’t imagine what Moreno you’re hoping to achieve here, short of libel.
Adding quotes about racism from David Simon—who last year used the n-word on Twitter and got a lot of heat for it—is indicative of how far you’re willing to go to libel this writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talkcontribs) 02:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) If you are going to accuse anyone of libel, you should be familier with WP:NLT, I am not saying you are trying to make a legal threat, just reminding you how things can be interpreted. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ballastpointed returned to the prior edit war pretty much immediately upon acknowledging this discussion, as well as having previously been warned and asked to build a consensus first. For that reason, I gave him a week block so as to slow down the edit war. If he expresses that he intends to stay on the talk pages going forward, and avoid editing against consensus, anyone may unblock. --Jayron32 03:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we also have a sock/meatpuppet issue. User:AlexVegaEsquire, who is also a single-purpose account whose only activity on Wikipedia has been to edit the Kevin Deutsch article (and create the original, fawning version of it), has suddenly appeared again after the block and has the exact same opinions as Ballastpointed (diff). Note that I'm not the first person; others, over a months-long period, have been attempting to have the article reflect the slant seen in the news media, but AlexVegaEsquire was the one editing it back earlier (as can be seen from notices on his talk page and his edit history). We may need the same treatment for this account as Ballastpointed: defend your points on the talk page in a style consistent with Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor and think Wikipedia admin should resolve the issue of whether or not SnowFire's removals should be restored, specifically the subject's denial of the allegations in the lead. Third party resolution needed. I am all for keeping this article current and reflective of slant but some moderation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talkcontribs)

Well, the edit war has resumed. I've made my one revert, but AlexVegaEsquire has put it back twice.
Note that it isn't just a dispute with me; AlexVegaEsquire has quarreled with other Wikipedia editors as well (example diff removing sourced (negative) material on fairly specious grounds), e.g. User:Baltimore free and User:Wikihunter6. (Which, granted, also seem to be newish SPA-ish accounts, but... willing to give some benefit of the doubt).
AlexVegaEsquire, for the content discussion about how relevant the subject's denials & explanations are, please edit Talk:Kevin Deutsch. Let's reserve this space for editor conduct. SnowFire (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "His "15 year career in journalism" is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article..." — Well, let's test that theory, shall we? Carrite (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Now nominated for deletion HERE. Feel free to opine, one and all. Carrite (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Flamestech's disruptive reversions, possible block evasion[edit]

User @Flamestech: is being disruptive in my opinion. They've messed with the infobox stats on the Second Italo-Ethiopian War ([43])([44]) (an area of the article that is subject to change via talkpage consensus; in spite of a suggestion that they go to the talk page they have refused to do and reverted my reversion with no explanation), have thrice reverted ([45])([46])([47])(a violation of the three revert rule in particularly concerning fashion) my attempts to post a deletion notice on an article they created, and attempted to cover up said deletion process by removing ([48]) the notice I left on their talk page. Their edits to the Second Italo-Ethiopian War are reminiscent of User:Krajoyn, a blocked editor known for their non-communicative edit-warring style who used many socks to try and force such edits upon the page. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  • And they continue to change the Second Italo-Ethiopian War article ([49])([50])([51])([52]) without any explanation or discussion. This needs immediate attentions because there's nothing I can do without violating the 3-revert rule. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I have blocked Flamestech for 24 hours for making four reverts on the Second Italo-Ethiopian War article within a 24 hour period per WP:3RR (0052, 0112, 0311, 0312 h on 23 Sep). Indy, if you haven't already done so, please post a comment on the article's talk page about why you disagree with Flamestech's edits. That way, one Flamestech's block has expired, they can join in the conversation and consensus can be established. If you are concerned about Flamestech being a sock, I suggest filing an WP:SPI. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
      • This person continues to make vandalism and to offend me with personal attacks (see here and here) with many sockpuppets that are already all blocked on italian Wikipedia for same vandalism (see here). --Holapaco77 (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I have reverted the personal attack and given the IP a warning. If they continue, please let me know. As I stated above, I feel that this needs to be taken to SPI with a full case outlined there linking the alleged sock puppets. That said, I'm happy to defer to the judgement of other admins if they disagree with this suggestion and feel it warrants different action. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits IPuser:24.190.40.112[edit]

Since 17 September 2017, 24.190.40.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Repeated disruptive edits every days (see user contribs log), including ununderstandable create inappropriate short articles from redirects[53][54], section branking, references removed[55], BLP violations, added unsourced content[56][57], adding strange grammar sentences (missing "[" or space, etc.)[58][59][60], and a disregard for Wikipedia guidelines. As warning from many other users [61][62][63][64] and editing blocked for 36 hours on 19 September is not worked, I think that it is necessary for editing block of six months or more. Inception2010 (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Inception2010: It should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marbe166: I know, but If I reported this IP user at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, then users says "It should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". I have experienced such a situation, so I reported this page. Inception2010 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Impedehim has made some intriguing edits.[edit]

Not sure what it's all about. Possibly a Nothere. Maybe some sort of sampler/edit bot. I don't know. Impedehim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). (Impede him?). Admins can see Wikipedia:Impedehim, deleted as a test page by RHawthorn. I deleted User:Impedehim (WVS). The tagged for deletion under U5 User:Impedehim looks like a Signpost article. Wikipedia:Dahomean Articles has the same content, apparently a fake Signpost article. As is Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Lacaidonian. There are more examples, but you get the drift. If someone else could take a look. I dropped them a note saying I was coming here. Will add the permalink.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim:--I have moved Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Lacaidonian to his user-space.That's outright disruptive.Since,I don't have the PMover right on this acc., please delete the corresponding redirect.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 18:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have given the editor a final warning, and I really do mean it to be final. If I see one more stupid edit I will be very likely to block the account. Please feel welcome to alert me if you see any more nonsense before I do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I wonder if we're the subject of a machine-writing experiment here? The deleted text has that disjointed feel to it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Article ownership, edit warring over maintenance tags, and less-than-civil edit summaries by User:Megerflit[edit]

The user in question is holding himself out as Nick Bougas. After revamping the article to his preferred version, he takes objection to any maintenance tags being placed on the article—especially anything pointing out that his edits may have affected the neutrality of the page. Further, his edit summaries, while they don't quite rise to the level of personal attacks, are far from civil. His level of ownership behaviour is such that he now is appealing to have the page deleted rather than have maintenance tags placed on it.

He's already been blocked for edit warring, and his first edits when back from the block were to start removing the tags. Clearly this is a situation for some administrator involvement. Can somebody else step in and talk to him? —C.Fred (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment--Anyone for a soft-block (impersonation) at a minimum? Anyways, I've reverted his latest edits.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
C.Fred suggests that somebody talk to him, but having looked at his editing history I think it has gone beyond that stage. I have blocked the account indefinitely. If he is willing to totally change his ways he can make an unblock request, and if he isn't then he is never going to make constructive contributions to the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Long-time repeated disruptive/POV editing by Ukrainian IP[edit]

Resolved: Six-month block

178.165.104.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (sample edits, all made after returning from their latest block: [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71])

For more than a year now (since 27 August, 2016) the above IP, a static broadband connection geolocating to the Ukraine, has been on a relentless campaign to "Ukrainise" all articles even remotely connected to the Ukraine and people they see as being or having been Ukrainians, by changing names, and/or transliteration thereof, etc away from what is commonly used in English language literature and media, to the names and/or transliteration currently preferred in the Ukraine, such as Kiev -> Kyiv, Kievan Rus' -> Kyivan Rus Vladimir the Great -> Volodymyr the Great, making anachronistic changes of place of birth, such as changing the country of birth for historic individuals from Russian Empire to the Ukraine, a country that didn't exist until long after the times of those individuals, etc. And getting blocked four times for it over the past year (with the latest one being a three-month block on 27 April), hasn't stopped them, as shown by them being back at it again just a few days after returning from their latest block on 27 July, making the exact same attempts to Ukrainise articles again on 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 20 and 31 August, and again on 12, 14, 18, 21, 22 and 23 September, showing no signs of ever stopping. All edits ever made by this IP are of the same kind, showing that it's a single individual doing it, meaning that there would be no collateral damage, so could we please have another block? For at least six months... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  • For a bit of a background to this see Talk:Kiev/naming, a collection of Requested move discussions spanning almost ten years, every one of which has ended in favour of keeping Kiev, and not changing to Kyiv. An outcome that a number of Ukrainian nationalists refuse to accept, in spite of being told repeatedly that we go by what WP:COMMONNAME says, so this isn't a simple content dispute but deliberate disruption, and an attempt to push the changes through by brute force. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done Blocked for six months as requested to prevent further disruption. I note that although the IP address is owned by Maxnet Telecom, it appears to be allocated to Kharkivs'ka city council. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Asima Chatterjee Google Doodle[edit]

Resolved: Article semi-protected for the duration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asima_Chatterjee

Lots of vandalism since this became a google doodle. I think IP editors should be blocked until the day is over at least. Autumn Wind (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

36 hours of semi has been applied. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

MfortyoneA[edit]

MfortyoneA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) moved Enclosure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Enclosure (legal) without consensus. It's since been moved back and a discussion is underway on the talk page. The problem is that MfortyoneA also changed every internal link to point to the new article title, which is now being CSD'd. Is there a way to get those edits batch reverted? Chris Troutman (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

@Chris troutman:--I am not very certain but as far as my knowledge goes there runs a certain bot to take care of these issues.Nope, it doesn't look like so! As of now,I have temp. removed the CSD for proper working of the links and prevent sudden deletion. Whoever decides to take a total look at here, shall evaluate the merits of the situation and shall revert the edits by MfortyoneA prior to deletion (if any) of the redirect.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
MfortyoneA's creation of redirects continues. Can an admin bring some sense to this situation? I don't think MfortyoneA has any intention of doing anything other than redirects and disambig, which seems problematic when it's pointless. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Not just pointless but sometimes non-constructive, like this. A common noun in English, previously un-wikilinked, does not need to be linked to a dab page just because Wikipedia has an article about a specialised concept by the same name - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, after all. And even if it were, how would a link to a dab page help our readers? --bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
enclosure ... A common noun in English .. yup, that's precisely my point. it seems crazy to me that this common noun has been used for such a specific meaning enclosure (legal) MfortyoneA (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I did this to illustrate how much enclosure doesn't mean enclosure (legal) to most people. if we get precise links, it's easier to get the right links. talk:enclosure (legal) , going through the previous exercise yielded the fact that enclosure had been mislinked. my mission here is to get enclosure renamed. MfortyoneA (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
'how do dabs and redirects help', emergence, discovery. does anyone claim to know every context in wikipedia themselves? someone else who knows more on a specific subject could come in later and re-target a redirect more accurately. the redirect can capture context. If those original cases (stonehenge's mention of enclosure for example) were more contextual, they'd be more likely to be caught. Isn't the fact that links can clarify jargon really nice? the hovercard feature??? you move the cursor over a term, and without needing to open it, it can clarify it for you with a popup. Isn't it great to leverage this more?MfortyoneA (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Please do not do this ever again. Adding an emphasis to somebody else's post is a form of changing the meaning of that post - maybe it is what the original poster intended, maybe not, but the only relevant thing is that if the poster didn't choose to add emphasis, nobody else should either (certainly not without clearly stating that they have done so). Anyway, here's how I see it: Wikipedia has an article called Bridge. Does that mean that every time the phrase "bridging the gap" is used in another article, the reader automatically assumes that a physical bridge is meant, because there is a Wikipedia article about that meaning of the word? You just used the word "leverage" (which I have never seen outside extreme marketingspeak, but never mind that). Do you mean for me to assume that you are physically wielding an actual lever (since the top definition at Leverage is Mechanical advantage)? No, of course not, in both cases. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we often use words in articles without any regard for the fact that there are homographs which have articles about them. A Wikipedia article title is not a definition of what the word in the title "means" for Wikipedia's purposes.
But this is actually not what we need to discuss here. Your post above reads as if you have been making these edits to make a point about the meaning of one particular word. You have also been making these edits rapidly, and restoring them when other people have reverted, even though you are aware that there is no consensus in favour of the changes. That's not how it is supposed to work: when you realise that there are different opinions you discuss the changes you want to make, you make your case on the relevant talk pages, and you do your best to get a consensus in favour of the changes. Making these large-scale changes, with new redirect pages, lots of new dab page entries etc is not collaborative, the way I see it. --bonadea contributions talk 16:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Too many tabs open - that edit did not add a link to a dab page, but it was nonetheless unnecessary and the rest of my comment applies. --bonadea contributions talk 16:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Chris Troutman was criticising me for 'not knowing the content of an article', and actually going through this excercise of simply linking via the terms (making the terms more precise) yielded that the article was infact confusing. Isn't the point of wikipedia to be read by people who don't already know it, rather than for some clique to pat each other on the back about it. the article used to say enclosure was specific to the 18th century, then he basically calls me stupid for not knowing that it isn't. He's admitted the mistake and changed it to say 'middle ages'. Just Following the word , I discovered other historical uses that weren't. Surely this kind of error would be less likely to occur if the title was more accurate in the first place. The title is too vague. the point is EVEN WITHOUT domain knowledge, just clarifying and linking individual terms CAN increase the value of this resource. MfortyoneA (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
User:MfortyoneA has, as noted, mostly been creating redirects, and disambiguation pages that are often only necessary because of the redirects. While redirects and disambiguation are an important part of Wikipedia, it appears that Mfortyone is cluttering up the encyclopedia and wasting editors' time. Does anyone else agree that a topic-ban on redirects would be in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Does google pay trolls to stop wikipedia from growing into a search index? .. is that why there's so much resistance to redirects and dabs? stranger things have happened, in recent times.. MfortyoneA (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
If I were to answer yes to that question, then, on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. As I said, redirects and disambiguation are an important part of Wikipedia, but they are only important when they facilitate use of the encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is not supposed to be a search index. That was a useful reply in that it shows that the OP appears to be trying to make the encyclopedia into something that it is not. See What Wikipedia is not, but maybe that guideline needs another paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
ok so you don't deny it. a word like enclosure could be a user friendly search index, but then google would get nervous about a rival. That's the only rational explanation I have for the insane policy here. I see 11000 instances of that word. I wonder what proportion of them are *really* 'the legal process (in england) of combining smallholdings'. along the way there are subtle changes in context though. the more precise the links are (for every word), the more wikipedia can help self-correct, or teach us things we didn't know we wanted (like, until yesterday, I didn't even know this use of enclosure existed. I discovered it as tangent from looking into housing. You know our society is in deep trouble when people can get all snotty, preventing others from improving a lovely free resource of hypertext MfortyoneA (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:RIGHTGREATSOCIETALHYPERTEXTWRONGS. EEng 02:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Umm... MfortyoneA is currently making about three edits a minute, most of which appear to be changing redirects to enclosure (legal). Doesn't seem exactly like the most constructive thing with an open RM and ANI. Just... FYI. I also seem to be getting some terrible deja vu to this discussion... probably purely coincidentally happening two weeks before MFOA's current account was created. GMGtalk 12:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking of that as well but couldn't find the discussion. Thank you for linking to it, GreenMeansGo. If nothing else, I think it is required reading to see what the discussions were before, and why so many people feel that overlinking and the overuse of redirects is a bad idea. --bonadea contributions talk 17:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm just gonna leave this here and suggest that we get a checkuser to look into it before this goes on any longer. Those are pretty exceptionally obscure articles to have such an overlap on for a user having exactly the same behavioral issues and nearly the same technobabble-esque responses. GMGtalk 17:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
{{Checkuser needed}} GMGtalk 21:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fmadd is  Stale and I see no reason to check for sleepers, so I'm declining CU. Sorry. Katietalk 18:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser template deactivated. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah... I don't frequent SPI, and didn't realize the data was stored for such a short period of time. I'm still personally convinced it's more likely than not, but I guess there's nothing we can do about it. I would note though the user continues to make on the order of several hundred edits per day related to these discussions, for whatever that's worth. GMGtalk 20:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sheesh. Could the editor please curb further upwellings of going nuts with WP:POINTY mass edits, and discuss this kind of thing before horking out dozens of redirects to a disambiguation page? Fat trout at the least, please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest that MfortyoneA be advised by the community to not move pages without discussion except in cases where obvious things like capitalization is at stake. This should get across the message to them that anything potentially controversial needs to be discussed. This would not be a formal sanction, as things have not gotten to that level yet. If MfortyoneA can take this advice into consideration and not perform moves that could potentially be considered controversial without discussion, then we should be done here. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    The move was fine - the failure to promptly reverse it was not, although it is understandable given the relative inexperience of the editor. The cleanup of the resulting links is harmless if the move gets reversed, and helpful if it doesn't. There appears to be some overlinking, as well as some overdisambiguating, but unless the sockpuppetry charge is demonstrated (Endorse checkuser request BTW), nothing here merits a dragging to the dramaboards. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
But it is not just about moving pages without consensus, which is of course bad enough. A greater problem is the mass creation of redirect pages and dab pages, and the overlinking of common words in articles, based on personal preference despite a lack of consensus, or (worse) for WP:POINTy reasons. I believe it is beyond "some overlinking", simply because it is so time consuming to clean up these things. Oh, and because MfortyoneA has restored some of the instances of overlinking without any attempt at discussion except for their posts in this thread. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This user is now changing working blue links into red links[72]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
if there's a case where that's accidental , i'll fix it, there's one place I can remember where it's erroneous and I wasn't sure where it *should* point. The problem is, the enclosure article is about one specific historical/legal phenomenon, but many articles use the word enclosure where the context is clearly about something else (animal enclosures, walled enclosures, plastic enclosures etc). isn't a redlink better than a silently wrong blue link? MfortyoneA (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I've just stuck a message on this user's talk page concerning Highland Clearances. The message refers to changes relative to Enclosure which is, if I understand correctly, the subject of a move discussion. My note on the user talk page stands alone - but it seems it should be known within the wider context of this user's activity.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
To be clear on the activity on Highland Clearances, prior to the edit, the reader would be linked to Enclosure and Common land, after the edit the link is only to the renamed version of the former. Hence the protest about a hasty edit.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Libraheights97[edit]

Resolved: User blocked indefinitely

Libraheights97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of disruptive editing on this encyclopedia. Since joining in August 2017, their continued edits at The Pinkprint have continued to be reverted, as it is not supported by reliable source. User was previously blocked for 72-hours for disruptive editing, however, any additional report is deemed "stale" or "unactionable," despite it being the same repeated pattern of editing. Also, at the Days of Our Lives page, the user continues to update information without changing the access date on the provided source; this alone proves that without updating the access date, the information could be questioned, as the information is provided after the provided access date. Despite multiple warnings (from myself and other editors), the user refuses to acknowledge this, and continues on this pattern of editing. Clearly, they are not here to edit constructively here at Wikipedia, and action should be taken. livelikemusic talk! 13:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism from Michigan IP[edit]

Resolved: Rangeblocked

For over two months now, I (along with some other editors) have been reverting vandalism/disruptive edits from multiple IP addresses (although probably the same person). I report it, they get blocked; but usually are back within a few days making the same type of nonsense vandalism across the same type of articles. The IPs in question are (I may have missed a few):

All IPs have been warned multiple times and have been (temporarily) blocked at some point within the last two months. The question is, what else can be done? Can something more substantive or preventive be done to stop this persistent nonsense vandalism? According to here, all IPs geolocate to Muskegon County and specifically, per the coordinates at the source, the Mercy Health Hackley Campus in Michigan. Can a rangeblock be issued or what? Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Dallas to keep a large chunk of data that doesn't belong there in the article[edit]

User:Texan44 has a dded a large chunk of economic data etc to the lead of Dallas, greatly expanding what was there previously, data that I removed since it's data for the entire Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex (which has its own article), not just for the city of Dallas which Dallas is about, but is being repeatedly added back again by Texan44, in spite of me telling them on their talk page, and in edit summaries, that is was removed for being outside the scope of the article it was added to, and pointing them to the correct article. I'm at three reverts now and can't revert them again, but I would appreciate if someone else could take a look at it, and make them understand, one way or the other. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The information contained in the article has been present in that article for years. It is nothing new. It has not been added on a whim. It has existed previously for quite some time. I have merely updated that previously existing text, with verifiable and appropriate citations and links, to reflect the latest data. The text is nothing new being added but merely represents appropriate updates to long standing text and long standing existing data. The whole paragraph is prefaced with the fact that Dallas is the central economy and much of that data is only available in the format it is provided in (i.e. GDP data is not by city it is by MSA or metropolitan data). All of the data represented is that type of data. It is not an edit war except that this person has suddenly decided to make this into one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texan44 (talkcontribs)
You expanded it, which is how I noticed it, and as I told you on your talk page, it doesn't matter if it has been there for years or not, it should go anyway, since it's outside the scope of the article. Dallas is about the city of Dallas only, not about the entire metroplex. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Since this looks like a content dispute, the best thing to do is to discuss the matter at Talk:Dallas. I've recommened this to Texas44 when they contacted me at my talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Adding economic data for the entire metropolitan area to the lead and body of the article about the city of Dallas, which may be the largest city in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex but is still just a part of it (with roughly one third of the population of the metroplex if my memory serves me right...Correction: the population of Dallas is less than one fifth of the total population of the metroplex...), misleads readers, and makes them believe that the economy of Dallas is larger than it is, and is as misleading as very prominently featuring economic data for all of Greater Los Angeles in the lead of the article about the city of Los Angeles. Just to mention one example. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
But there is no intent to mislead, so no administrative action is needed regarding the article. This is a matter for Talk:Dallas. If there's a 3RR violation after proper warning, you can take that to WP:AN3. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying they're intentionally trying to mislead anyone, but the end result is the same whether it's intentional or not. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

False accusations of incivility & vandalism[edit]

On Talk:Malta Convoys, my comments on an edit were called "incivil" by User:Keith-264, with whom (AFAI recall) I've had no previous contact. Following a content dispute, he demanded "discussion" of the contested edit, but refused to actually enter into any discussion, & when I rv'd (following his rv of the contested edit), he described it as vandalism. (I believe that also puts him in violation of 3RR...which, I confess, I may also be.) I don't appreciate abuse. I don't appreciate false accusations. I don't appreciate being held to a standard nobody else is actually being held to. I expect this complaint will produce just another excuse to air my past bad behavior, however, & provide yet another opportunity for people hostile to me to call for an indefinite block. At this point, I might welcome it. It beats harassment by User:Keith-264, & stalking by User:Andy Dingley, all hollow. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Trek has taken umbrage despite a considerable effort by several editors to accommodate his point of view over the last week. He has reverted good work by defining it as not relevant to the article, refused to heed contrary opinion by two editors and arbitrarily reverted it again tonight, yet again according to a personal view of the motives of others. A quick look at the talk page shows that I have made a considerable effort to seek consensus and am not the editor in a minority of one. Calling me a harasser is a bit rich.Keith-264 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:BOOMERANG. Trekphiler, I don't know what your childish whining is about today, but either post some diffs or leave me out of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Both User:Trekphiler and User:Keith-264 have violated 3RR. Interactions between these two editors at Talk:Malta convoys have been strained for going on a week now. In this time, I have attempted to moderate discussion and provide a third opinion to try to keep things running smoothly and to find a consensus but this has become increasingly difficult. My most recent offer to continue stands but any prospect of success appears to be increasingly unlikely unless there is a significant change. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Civility war?. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
My error. There have been three reverts by each in less than 24 hrs (if I got the maths right), not "more than 3", so this is not a violation of 3RR. My apologies to all for my error. It is; however, nonetheless, a situation that requires admin intervention. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
"considerable effort"? I've seen you whining about my attitude & calling me a vandal, but not a lot of discussion of the substantive issue--& agreeing discussion with me is "a waste of time".
"leave me out of it" Right after you stop inserting yourself into discussions that have nothing to do with you.
It seems to me Keith-264 has been hostile to my edits on the Malta Convoys page from the start & has been trying to provoke me into saying something genuinely incivil. I believe that's called "baiting", & I understood there was a penalty for that. Presumably it only applies if I do it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the one making wholesale reverts without consensus, jumping to conclusions about motive or ignoring third party mediation.Keith-264 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
No, you're claiming vandalism, incivility, & ownership, despite edits like this. Who's got a problem with ownership? And who, evidently, wants me to just shut up & go away? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Trekphiler, you brought this to ANI. As is well recognised, ANI isn't a place for content disputes. Now if you have a concrete ANI-relevant reason for a problem with some other editor(s)' behaviour, then say clearly what that is. Otherwise withdraw this ANI filing, because a fatuous ANI filing against others is not an acceptable use of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This has become disruptive at the subject talk page/article. There has (IMO) been a clear case of WP:GAMING, which I have reverted for this reason. Beyond this, I make no comment regarding culpability. However, if all of the allegations being made here are problematic, then, I believe it would be appropriate to at least take interim action to minimise further disruption. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"take interim action to minimise further disruption" I was right. You do just want to shut me up. Accusing me of vandalism for making an edit one editor disapproves of is okay, but any edit I make, even one that is allegedly acceptable to him, is "gaming the system"? So much for fair treatment. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
One other thing crosses my mind. Isn't an accusation of vandalism, when it's not a fairly clear example (& not just a dispute over content) a violation of AGF? (Oh, wait, I forgot--no, since I didn't do it...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
And after saying on the talk page he wouldn't oppose adding calibers, this, more evidence of WP:OWN issues. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Tonmoypaul.71 pagemoves[edit]

Not too sure what's going on here, but Tonmoypaul.71 (talk · contribs) has been moving pages in long chains. It appears he is trying to move Datta High School to Dutt High School, but has created a whole mess in the process. Could someone clean it up? (note - before a few days ago, the article refered to the school as Datta, then some IP's changed it to Dutt - may be the same person) – Train2104 (t • c) 00:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The external links, when run through Google Translate, give "Datta High School" and not "Dutt High School". Google Maps shows a location for "Datta High School" but none for "Dutt High School", although it does show a "Dutta Girls High School". Current, the article is at "Dutt High School", but this appears to be incorrect. Someone who is proficient in the language should look this over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
It should be "Datta" in English, but it would appear that it is known as "Dutt" in English. In languages that use Latin script <u> usually represents "ooh"-like sounds. Due to the fact that English orthography basically preserves the way English was pronounced 700 years ago or so, it also represents "aah"-like sounds, like the <u> in the previous name of Kolkata. It also appears that we may well have a young person writing about their own school, as often happens, so be gentle. Remember What the Thunder Said. (Admittedly I wrote about the main administration block at one of my (four) alma maters, and made it the top google hit for "Sydney's ugliest building" for some time.)--Shirt58 (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing copyright and article re-creation issues[edit]

Rajasekharan Parameswaran has been uploading oil paintings claimed to be by the user, permissions need to be sent to OTRS, also according to talk page, they have been trying multiple times to create article about self. Did however send an email to OTRS ticket # 2016102610000483 to identify self, ticket validity seems highly suspect. Bringing here as some Administrative action seems warranted. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jcc: As you probably realized, the indenitty of the user is not the issue, being the apparent copyright holder of all these paintings, explicit permission must be given via OTRS and must be released under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation license or Wikimedia can not use or host the images. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Yep- my mistake. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Since we have evidence that this user is the copyright holder, there is no copyright issue here. This user has as much right to release the painting as I do a picture that I took with my camera. See how we've handled this with Jerry Avenaim and commons:User:Jerry Avenaim~commonswiki with File:Phil 1.jpg, File:William Shatner.jpg, and other files in Commons:Category:Photographs by Jerry Avenaim. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: None of their uploads were tagged as OTRS received, just that their identity had been confirmed on their user pages and that ticket (IMO) proves nothing, but so be it. I can revert all my edits to the files if needed, but this seems to be real shotty OTRS work in my opinion. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Have you seen the contents of the ticket? [This isn't a rhetorical "stupid, of course the ticket confirms it"; I've not seen it either] Unless you're disagreeing with an OTRS agent's conclusion that the ticket confirms identity, there's no issue here. Once we know that you're the copyright holder, there's no reason to dispute anything copyright-related; Rajasekharan Parameswaran has the right to upload Rajasekharan Parameswaran's creations, just as User:Nyttend has the right to upload [my real name]'s photographs, and if we've confirmed that User:Rajasekharan Parameswaran is Rajasekharan Parameswaran, the user's uploads shouldn't be questioned on copyright grounds. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I just chalk it up to having my nose somewhere it shouldn't have been. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Concerns about 8Dodo8's use of rollback[edit]

Earlier today I got a notification that my edit to remove deprecated image syntax was reverted by 8Dodo8. Upon looking further into who 8Dodo8 was - I discovered an unfortunate pattern of 8Dodo8 using the tool to give themselves an advantage in a content dispute on FC Steaua București. There seems to be a disagreement on what to use for the name of the football club between User:GrizzlyBear2002 and 8Dodo8 - both editors have been edit warring at the page.

Regardless of who's "right", using rollback on multiple occasions doesn't help settle the content dispute; let alone when coupled with an all-caps edit summary early on in the dispute.

In separate occurences, 8Dodo8 has used rollback to revert constructive edits that they disagree with.

Given the several occasions where the 8Dodo8 has misused the tool, I do not think the user is fit to retain access to rollback. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. User has already been informed of the purpose of it at Special:PermaLink/775775488#User:8Dodo8. I also don't see them using it for anti-vandalism efforts. Misuse of rollback is probably my biggest pet peeve, so I fully support removal for both the lack of need and misuse of the tool. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
1. I reverted your edit because all the big football clubs use the 190px or something like that for their club badges.
2. I used the rollback tool many times on the FC Steaua page because GrizzlyBear and multiple users are constantly vandalasing the page. The name of the club is Fotbal Club FCSB as seen in the source I provided, but Grizzly kept changing it. I also used it because many vandals change the content on the page, as there isa division betwen its supporters. I actually requested for the page to be indefinetely protected so we could avoid this issue.
If you guys animously consider that I used the tool in a right way, I will understand and you can remove it from my account.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this is misuse of the rollback tool. Both of these are content disputes. WP:NOT VANDALISM. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Well I incorrectly considered the second issue as vandalism and I also thought the tool can be used for other thinkgs other than vandalism. I should have read the policies more carefully.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

197.48.107.245[edit]

197.48.107.245 has made repeated vandalism edits to Nokia, currently at 4th warning, and additionally made a personal attack against Prolog, see this version of the user's talk page. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 22:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, an IPv4 address that is located in Egypt. They seem to have stopped what they were doing at 21:11, which is now four hours ago. If they resume, report them to WP:AIV. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Star Wars films and television series[edit]

At List of Star Wars films and television series, 68.199.145.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been persistently changing the status of two films from not canon to canon without sourced backing: Edit 1, Edit 2, Edit 3, Edit 4, Edit 5, Edit 6, Edit 7, Edit 8. Myself and another user have reverted them each time, and we left three warnings on their talk page. At this point, it's disruptive, and I am unsure if they will stop of their own accord. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit 9, Edit 10 after an additional warning after the ANI notice. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Ought to be blocked. Sometimes, blocking is the only way to get through such individuals. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The IP has made the change an additional eighteen times since GoodDay's comment here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it's up to 20 times now. IP has ignored both a soft and a hard EW warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
IP has been blocked by Malcolmxl5 and article restored to status quo ante. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
2x(edit conflict) Yep, blocked for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

FleetCommand and their harassment[edit]

Over the past couple of years, FleetCommand, has made it difficult for me to make contributions to Wikipedia. It has come to a point where he now wishes me dead!

Here is the one that really has gotten to me: 1 In this case they:

  • called me "our most stupid editor"
  • wrote "every time I read his name, it is bad news"
  • said I "pulled stupid stunts"
  • and stated "When he dies, I will certainly celebrate"

Other examples:

  • 2 3 failed to state what I did wrong, reverted redirect, and did not address the ambiguous issue. Yes, the dab page wasn't perfect, but TV (software could refer to apps on TVs
  • In this diff 4 he failed to assume good faith, and stated "Oh, great. WikIan contributing more crap" and "his person doesn't know why we do things when we do them." as if WP:ABF and WP:OWN were rules to live by. All I did 5 was add an image. I did it through the Visual Editor, so I did not know that it caused a mobile issue.
  • Next was the issue with Microsoft's branding 6 Initially he attacked me for finding sources for Outlook on the web was the name of two services, in fact MS changed their mind, but he blatantly reverted my edits multiple times without backing up his sources
  • Previously this year he stated 7 I was "wrong in every dispute so far"

I was hoping s/he would accept that I make mistakes, but all is in good faith. I've been editing for awhile, but this person seems to think I'm a kindergartener editing Wikipedia for the first time. This has gone way too far. WikIan -(talk) 02:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Irrespective of the content dispute or editing competence, stating that When he dies, I will certainly celebrate is completely unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Agree with Blackmane, with the caveat that that particular part of the comment could be an extremely off-colour joke (that should nevertheless be blanked and possibly rev-delled). @FleetCommand: Did you mean that in sincerity? You should, at the very least, strike it -- almost any admin would readily block you for a remark like that, regardless of whether you were right about WikIan's content edits. As to whether you were right about their edits -- they appear to have a clean block log, so if you have tried to bring their "disruption" to the attention of the community before this point you should probably provide some evidence. If it's just your opinion, then you should shut up about it because accusations like that are not acceptable. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia community necessarily requires a collegial operating environment. This means that we should not be calling other editors stupid or hoping for their deaths, whether or not it was said in jest or in a moment of anger. Such comments should not even be made towards confirmed trolls or the truly disruptive. FleetCommand's comment is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia as a matter of policy. It should be removed per WP:NPA, among other policies. I do not believe a block is necessary based solely on that comment, but there may be other misconduct that I have not seen which indicate that a block is necessary to prevent further disruption to the editing environment. At the very least, FleetCommand should consider himself sternly warned that further such comments can and will result in a block. Pure NPA blocks (as opposed to ones for vandalism, NOTHERE, etc.) are rather rare in this day and age, but I can see one being issued in short order. As to whether further sanctions should lie, in my view this should be based on whether there is a pattern of disruption. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • As an aside, I have notified FleetCommand of this thread. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment by the talk page holder, Codename Lisa: Hello, earthlings! I am away for one day, and you start a war on my talk page! Tch, tch! You naughty, naughty people. Has someone here been a baaaaaaaaaad boy? Face-wink.svg Joke aside, there is a lot of bad blood between FleetCommand and WikIan. Back in 2016, WikIan tried to merge Outlook.com and Outlook on the web articles into a new Outlook Mail article and had a clash with yours truly, Jeh, ViperSnake151, and FleetCommand. Ever since, I have had a feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the auditor.
On this certain occasion, WikIan has made 61 edits involving renaming articles whose titles ended with "(software)", a direct violation of ArbCom ruling highlighted in MOS:STABILITY, a deviation from our naming scheme, a violation of WP:DAB on at least three accounts. After being in Wikipedia for 7 years, does he not know that disambiguation pages end with (disambiguaiton), not (software)? JE98 found it suspicious and tried to notify me. In reponse, WikIan said something that looks highly inaccurate to me, perhaps even dishonest. He more or less denied having done anything dramatic. The provocation theme comes to my mind. At worst, he is engaged in deliberate disruption of Wikipedia and harassment. At best, he is engaged in unintentional disruption rising from lack of competence.
Then again, feel free to dismiss all this as conspiracy theory. I think the solution is still the same: WikIan must accept that he has room for improvements (acres of it, actually) and he is late doing it by seven years. He can't just push everyone's button and come here crying that people whose buttons were pushed didn't treat him well. At one point, someone will come to the conclusion that it is him who must stop button-pushing.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you User:Codename Lisa. So, FleetCommand's comment was completely out of line and should be stricken as a personal attack and they should be cautioned about civility and told to read over NPA again, and we should either sanction or sternly warn WikIan for their own misbehaviour? I am sorry, but I have very little patience for people who deliberately goad and provoke other editors, and then immediately play the victim once the other editors are pushed over the brink. @WikIan: is Codename Lisa's outline of the events leading up to the edit you link accurate? Specifically, can you disprove her feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the [other e]ditor? Under normal circumstances, per WP:AGF, I would not place the burden of defending yourself on you (it's FC and CL's responsibility to substantiate their own accusations), but technically in this case you came here asking for sanctions against someone who posted a comment that looks provoked, so you really can't expect the rest of us to simply assume your side of the story is completeky accurate. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) By the way: The fact that the OP has opened three ANEW reports, one on FC which resulted in a two-way warning, and never been reported himself makes me somewhat inclined to believe Codename Lisa that this is a bellicose user trying to trick other users into getting into trouble. Two-way edit-warring that one party chooses to forum-shop to ANEW should send up red flags, and the fact that the edit linked by the OP shows an intent to report them on ANI makes me very much think this thread was opened in an attempt to get FC before FC got them. I'm sorry if I'm misreading something, but the more I look into this the more I think a BOOMERANG should be coming. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hijiri88: It is not just that. Please see this:
"2 3 failed to state what I did wrong". Well, that's outright dishonest. The following sentence seems not only a good-faith attempt to explain but also an accurate and conscise one:

Partial title matches and items without link are not allowed. If you don't want to read WP:DAB and MOS:DAB, at least read WP:DDD.

WikIan is insulted directly; I understand that. But that does not justify lying to us.
"but TV (software) could refer to apps on TVs". No! It could not. Everyone knows that parenthetical suffixes are for disambiguation only. Furthermore... (Sigh!) Oh, my! There is so much to explain. Yes, WikIan, please study WP:DAB and MOS:DAB, or at least WP:DDD.
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I saw those too. I think WikIan wants us to interpret all of the previous, at-worst-slightly-uncivil, remarks in light of the later When he dies, I will certainly celebrate, when in reality WikIan has not seven diffs of FC harassing them but one diff of FC overreacting to WikIan harassing them. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Whatever your view of the underlying content, "Oh, great. WikIan contributing more crap" is an extremely uncollegial way to approach editing and the first diff cited above is completely unacceptable. Per NPA, It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. @FleetCommand: I really hope you're going to refactor/strike those comments when you come back online. GoldenRing (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @GoldenRing: Indeed. Unacceptable is the word. I've already removed the whole "unacceptable" thread, so there is nothing for FC to do.
As for my view of the matter, we have two unacceptable things, neither of which justify the other. Both should be addressed for the good of Wikipedia. We must make it a point that we tolerate neither. I think it would be best for both editors to shake hands, one promising no future insults and the other promising a sincere attempt to improve self and learn from our veterans. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. I think FC should apologize, but there's no tradition of forcing people to apologize for off-colour remarks that have already been blanked, unless they actively try to restore them. There is the problem, though, of WikIan's behaviour; I think if this thread gets closed as Offending comment has been blanked. Nothing more to be done. (read: implying the disruption was one-sided) that will just embolden them and encourage more disruption. That said, unless more evidence is forthcoming I'd say a strong warning, specifically a promise of a block next time they make another of the offending edits, might be enough. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I am thinking a little beyond that. My role in this is what I must not neglect. (There was a reason all this happened in my talk page.) For now, I have disengaged from all Apple-related software articles and have removed them from my watchlist, except for two cases where my involvement was a matter of the elephant in the room. (I participated in one before noticing this dicussion. I also granted a template edit request; monitoring the aftermath in Apple Wallet is simply my responsibility.) Still, 14 less items in my watchlist should help WikIan see less of me and de-escalate matter. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • First, I don't edit Wikipedia for a living. Yes, I make mistakes, but I do think my positive contributions have outweighed those. @FleetCommand: is the only user to specifically target my edits and either revert them or challenge them on a regular basis. CL and others have reverted edits (this is natural due to WP:BRD cycle), but not in a way that personally insults me or aggressively challenges all edits because they may do drastic changes. There is no guideline against drastic changes if they improve Wikipedia.
  • Furthermore, I am not super involved as CL or FC are in Wikipedia's guideline or ArbCom rulings. Furthermore, I have taken CL's advice on many of my edits. I checked the backlinks to make sure the page moves didn't break anything. This is when I ran into a problem with the double redirects, which logically seemed to be solved with dab pages.
  • I have had a feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the auditor Yea, why would I do this? I was wrong (though not at the time) for the Outlook.com/OOTW debacle. I'll admit that was due to Microsoft not knowing themselves. And who, might I add, have the time to specifically target a single person unless they edit a lot? If I was targeting FC, I'd be all up in his watchlist and ONLY editing whatever he edits with vandalism.
  • If you want to know my thought process this time around, I (as usual) was looking for Article Title Consistency according to WP:CRITERIA and also don't you guys realize we are violating WP:NPOV by favoring Apple with the "software" redirect?
  • The fact that the OP has opened three ANEW reports I'm sorry... but now I'm a fault for reporting people? I'm pretty sure others have opened up reports for me too. Check the logs. For both WikIan and my old username. Whatever I bring to the Administrators attention is within Wikipedia guidelines. There is no fault in doing so. Also, isn't this an admin noticeboard? I'd like an admin to handle this actively as well.
  1. Target link at start? Check. All of my links were at the start (except one, TV (software)). Whoops, but that doesn't that aside, TV (software) is obviously what someone would look for if they are researching apps for their TV. (read: ambiguous)
  2. Keep descriptions short. Check.
  3. Sections. Don't need.
  4. Primary topic: well, TV (software) is incredibly ambiguous. Talk:TV_(Apple), see that discussion. I mean come on, seriously, this is just ambiguous. Yes, it was a change, but many of the other Apple articles used (Apple) parenthetical disambiguation. that user had to ruin it according to the talk page. Yeah? So what? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you WP:OWN Wikipedia. As also stated "Too many apps/services" is subjective Emir of Wikipedia, not me. CL and FC, your prejudice against me also opposes other editors.
  5. Wiktionary and incoming links weren't needed, and I didn't think it needed cleanup. There were not multiple blue links, (there was one piped link), I didn't add an entry w/o a blue link or w/ a red link. I didn't include EVERY article containing the title.
  6. I also didn't include any dictionary definition or external links.
  • No! It could not. How so?
  • implying the disruption was one-sided If you wish me off of Wikipedia I will leave. I don't want to go, but if you are turning this against me, I will. I haven't caused disruption, except to those editors who are just used to the way things haven't changed, even though they directly violate WP:NPOV, and then turn around and yell I'm violating WP:DDD
Good day to you all, WikIan -(talk) 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @WikIan: You wrote: "Yea, why would I do this? I was wrong" Very well. Let's say I believe you, as Hanlon's razor says. But understand this:
  1. It does not matter how you assess your level of activity; given your level of participation in Wikipedia, length of service, and the troubles in which you have been (mentioned above by yourself, I and Hijiri88), your knowledge and understanding of our rules, guidelines and practices is insufficient. Improve it. Pretexts save you once, not twice.
  2. Your recent changes in the Apple software area was wrong. Make it you mission to find out why.
Feel free to ignore all I said or protest. Time is a cruel mistress. She will see to it that you will learn the hard way in due course.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, I'm not trying to "play dumb" here. If I were, I'd say that I didn't know WP:DDD existed. My interpretation of what I did (for the reasons above), though not perfect, is that it contributed in a positive way to those articles. Tell me, is Health (Apple) more ambiguous than Health (software)? If not, I'd like to know if that's what you are referring to in the case of Your recent changes in the Apple software area was wrong.
Again, looking at WP:DDD, which I did in the above list, I don't see what I did wrong, except not put a blue link at the start of the entry. JE98 said (paraphrasing here) "there were too many entries to list in the DAB page", which led me to believe I made a mistake. However, according to the guideline, you don't have to list every entry with that title. WikIan -(talk) 06:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding the underlying (article title) content dispute, there are open move discussions at TV (Apple) and Wallet (software). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I just had to remove an attack on FC by WI in this thread. FC's previous comment was completely unacceptable as well. Both of you cut out the personal attacks or you'll be blocked for a month (this is my go-to solution to feuds, and it has had some minor success in the past). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Opinion on edits by new editor[edit]

Hi Editor Zocklandy insists on adding this table to a number of articles here and a few others in the Portuguese WP (where an admin has reverted it and is keeping an eye on his edits). Despite Zocklandy messages on his/ her talk page] and multiple reverts in the Portuguese WP and here in the English, the editor does not even bother to acknowledge/ respond or discuss. The problem with the edit is that

  • It contradicts all that is generally known of the composition of the Brazilian population, claiming that the French are the primary contributor of DNA factors in the Norte region (52%); Italy the primary one in the Nordeste region (61%). It takes a few minutes to confirm that the French are nowhere near a significant group anywhere in Brazil, the Italians are indeed so, but in the south. Those figures are not stated but are somehow extracted from the information in the source that the user is citing. Does this in itself constitute WP:OR?
  • It is at odds with the genereal tone of the artcile, which is of a generalist nature. Tables such as "European and Midle eastern lineages contributions to Y-haplogroup in Brazilian population" and "European and Midle eastern lineages contributions to R1b1a-M269 sub-haplogroups in Brazilian population" and the text in this section simply are way above the tone of the article.

I request input from fresh eyes on this one. The user is being duly notified. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Communication problems with IkbenFrank[edit]

IkbenFrank (talk · contribs) seems to be one of those editors who doesn't seem to talk much. His talk page is full of unanswered complaints and he never uses edit summaries. I've had a go at getting through but it's fallen on deaf ears. I wonder if anyone else can succeed? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, have tried before, even left a final warning before I went into semi retirement but he just never listens or learns. Think it’s time we blocked him to be honest, most of his edits are non constructive as it is. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
+1 - He has no interest in communicating or discussing and no amount of warnings will change that, Personally I'd support a 2 week block and if it carries on then the block would get longer and even indef if need be. –Davey2010Talk 13:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above. This isn't just a communication problem but also WP:COMPETENCE, apparently. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 17:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Could Ritchie333 please explain what Ikbenfrank is meant to have done wrong? The guy's quiet but is he actually disruptive? I should mention I was canvassed by Ritchie because I reverted one of IkbenFrank's edits three years ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to know the answer as well. Yes he's not using edit summaries, but I'm not noticing anything in his edits that's disruptive. And there's nothing recent on his talk page to indicate there's a problem. If there is then no one has engaged with him. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats at Talk:James D. Zirin[edit]

RESOLVED:
Blocked per NLT. --QEDK () 14:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jzirin (talk · contribs), a WP:SPA who has twice posted a copyvio vanity page at James D. Zirin and James d zirin, is now making legal threats here. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I templated "User:Jzirin" per WP:TPO, since the pages getting deleted meant there was no live link to anything in the above post. I hope User:Mr. MacTidy doesn't mind. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not a bit, thanks. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for the legal threats, though they should've been blocked a while ago for disruptive editing anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

First day registered user Chrag Lay Fong removing content from 200 pages[edit]

User:Chrag Lay Fong user contributions show that they have removed Arabic/Xiao'erjing script from approximately 200 articles pertaining to Islam in China, mainly articles about Hui people who use this script. They have never provided a rational for doing so, and they never provided any edit summaries. Could an administrator mass-revert these edits or should there be a lengthy discussion first? - Takeaway (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not qualified to judge whether the edits in question were helpful or not, but because it was mass editing, without an apparent consensus, without explanation (not even an edit summary) and from a brand new editor, I have rolledback the edits that were accessible to rollback, and advised the editor to come to this discussion and explain why they made the edits, as wellas to ask where is the best place to go to get a consensus to make mass edits of that type. Any established editor who feels the edits were legitimate and should not have been rolled back may reinstate them without the need to check with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
While it would have been preferred to use a mass rollback tool that allows you to provide an edit summary, I agree that this should have been done. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I provided a rationale on the user's talk page. I don't generally use many automated or semi-automated tools. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
These notices were given on 25 September. Since User:Chrag Lay Fong continued to remove Arabic script from more articles on 26 September, I have blocked them for 48 hours. They have never left a talk comment or an edit summary. The affected articles that I've checked all have some connection to Islamic people or culture so the presence of Arabic script has some logic. I have no objection if anyone wants to do a further rollback. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants and Mr rnddude[edit]

Closing as IAR per Power's suggestion. There is nothing to be gained from wrist-slapping someone for saying fuck. We are all adults here (or pretending to be) and sometimes people get aggravated with one another. The best solution is just to go do something else for awhile. Not everything needs to end with a lengthy community discussion and possible sanctions. Sometimes you can just shrug and decide you don't like the other guy and then (and this is important) you walk away and do something else. ♠PMC(talk) 23:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section header refactored. You don't have to argue your positions in the heading. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping not to come here, however, the accusations levelled by MjolnirPants at me yestereday were such that I have no other recourse for action other than to take it to a noticeboard and either be sanctioned, or have those accusations [read: aspersions] addressed. That is, at least true, as MjolnirPants has asked me to kindly fuck off from his talk page if I only intended to accuse him. His exact words to me were; That being said, the meaning of the last sentence you couldn't quite parse is that I actually have better things to do than sit here and be accused of shit by another editor with an axe to grind. So if you have something different to talk about, feel free. However, if that's all you're going to do, kindly fuck off. I replied here and retracted what could reasonably be interpreted to be a personal attack here. The reason I replied was that I had entirely missed his accusations against me and that I noticed numerous factual errors in his post. I did not reply to further accuse him of misconduct, though, I am convinced it was misconduct and mentioned it a couple times anyway. I even made a note that we would not agree before I rudely fuck[ed] off.
If you look at the thread, you will probably notice that things get off badly immediately, but, I am actually only here for one post of his. This is because, if the accusations in his first post are accurate, then I deserve a 48 hour block for edit-warring and exerting ownership. If they are not, then the reverse is true and MjolnirPants has earned a 48 hour block for NPA, aspersions and incivility. I hope neither happens, rather, I'd like a warning instead. That warning would have to be delivered by an administrator or experienced editor other than myself as I consider myself banned from MjolnirPants' talk page - per this plain comment here - not to level bad-faith accusations about misconduct against good-faith editors.

  • The issues I have;
  • MjolnirPants seems to be under the impression that attributing bad faith actions and motivations to another editor, simply for being pulled up for a poorly thought out comment of his, is an acceptable way to treat other editors. I absolutely do not. That comment was the casting of aspersions against a group of individuals on AN and then his replies to me were casting aspersions about my conduct. It might also be important to note that, whether or not the claims are verifiable (I don't know if they are), this sort of abuse is almost never acceptable.
  • The backstory here is that I had hatted a subthread of toxicity. I had included MjolnirPants' analysis in this hat because of the assertion that I think the arguments in support of this unblock request are weak at best, and dishonest at worst. MjolnirPants made a partial revert of my edit and made the bold claim that move collapse: that analysis comes from an involved party, but there's nothing untoward in it whatsoever. I reverted, pointed out that this was untrue, and I then went to MjolnirPants' talk page to explain to them why it was untrue and ask them to remove the NPA and then move the analysis from the hat. I also advised them that their analysis appeared unwise and that it might be best to leave it hatted. This is entirely because of the obvious bias/POV they have with regards to the thread itself. I also don't consider an involved individual to be the appropriate person to be offering the advice. Instead, and I had completely missed this at the time, I was accused of edit-warring and of taking AN hostage (OWNERSHIP) to suit my sensibilities. I do not believe either of these accusations are true and believe that the fact that I had not re-reverted, nor forced their analysis out, to be demonstrative of this fact.
  • Lastly, I would like to ask uninvolved editors and admins to take a look at my conduct and MjolnirPants' conduct at WP:AN, User talk:MjolnirPants, and possibly here, and tell myself or MjolnirPants whether or how either of our conduct might have been unacceptable. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Addressing the accusations MjolnirPant's has made;
  • Thank you for your time, and I apologize for bringing this here. I hope not to have to do so again.
  • Side-note; I have left MjolnirPants a notification for this thread. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
You know, I asked you to fuck off of my talk page because all you were doing was stirring up drama. I figured you just had a hair up your butt about something and that as long as I nipped that particular bit of drama off, you could get back to happily editing articles, well away from that jackass, MjolnirPants. But then I saw this, and realized that the only thing you've been doing on WP for the past two weeks is stirring up drama. So I guess I'm not surprised that you felt the need to escalate further. Oh, and you weren't accused of anything. I asked you not to edit war, and I said you don't have the right to hold my analysis hostage to your own personal views of what I should or should not have said. I said that in response to this edit summary, in which you strongly implied that you would keep edit warring your hat back in until I caved to your demands. Pretty much everything you've said here is over-the-top hyperbole. Why don't you go edit an article instead of stirring up more shit? Seriously, WP needs less drama, not more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No, you asked me not to continue to edit war. Which means that as far as you were concerned, I had started edit-warring. I didn't take ownership of your analysis, and you said I took ownership of the page, not your comment. I did not imply any kind of edit-warring, I asked that you keep it hatted or strike the obvious incivility. Amazing, you somehow think you can read my mind as well. I looked at my last two weeks of edits; DelRev, RfA, ANI, AN, my talk page, a B-class review (still incomplete) and about 40 edits worth of anti-vandalism. So, on top of everything else, now you're blatantly lying about my last two weeks of editing which encompasses a total of about 70 edits (11th Sept - 25th Sept). I'm also waiting for a GA review to be completed for Burebista. TheWizardman is a little bit busy and has asked me to wait a few days. I have absolutely no problem doing so. Yes, I've been more active at AN/I and AN in the past week, if I have stirred up any other drama (aside from this) please point it out and I will endavour not to repeat it. I do admit, however, that my most contributed to page is AN/I with, somehow, more than a thousand edits. Additionally, from my Xtools, my contributions for the past month are 175 edits; 46 to articles (anti-vandalism mostly), 62 to user talk (part antivandalism, part my talk page queries, part MP's talk page, and part other), and 58 to Wikispace (RfA, ANI, AN, DelRev, etc). Not great, but, significantly better than suggested above. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I request an admin close this thread, by WP:IAR if nothing else. The excessive rules-lawyering over the Hidden Tempo stuff really needs to stop. These editors should voluntarily leave each other alone and go somewhere else. I also note the essay WP:PUNITIVE which suggests against the claim that somebody must be punished for what appears to be some editors having a heated discussion (and saying "fuck" on several occasions). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Honestly, can we just not? Neither of you appear to have made a mainspace edit in several days. Oh look, Self-flagellation needs quite a bit of cleaning up, and Snarl is a poor neglected stub, as is Self-righteousness. GMGtalk 23:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. Power; I'm not overly interested in the HT stuff, I wasn't involved in the thread until it came across AN/I and I hatted a series of comments that contained sanctionable material. I had hoped that would resolve the conflict, not create a new one. GMG; you are probably right, however, I do not believe I have behaved towards MP anywhere nearly as poorly as he has to me. I really would like that warning. If any action needs to be taken against me, then I have to cop it as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Dude. WP:FUCKIT. What exactly here is supposed to be causing a material detriment to the project that's going to outweigh the time spent on exactly this thread? This looks an awful lot like a problem born and raised in project and user spaces, and doesn't affect the actual encylopedia at all. Consider turning off revert notifications. It helps tremendously. GMGtalk 23:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to just "thank" GMG for this comment using the button; I want to advertise my thanks publicly. He is saying smart things that should be listened to. Let things go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
How do you turn off revert notifications? I usually kept it when I did NPP two years ago and had to undo newbie editors removing CSD templates. It's not causing damage to any articles, and yes, I suppose, that's the most important thing. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Uncheck "Edit revert". — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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