Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Dispute about block warnings and AN/I block request

This is essentially a self-report:

There has been an ongoing discussion on several Wikipedia pages about the way fact that I quickly went to WP:ANI after issuing a final warning on Henia Perlman's talk page, following a pattern of adding content to The Holocaust or a few related articles that were reverted because they were not in a form ready to be posted to the article or it was not cited at all or not properly. The user has mentioned that she is challenged by some of the technical formatting in Wikipedia -- and this has been an ongoing theme, so I am posting this so that this can be sorted out.

As I understand it, the user is concerned that I issued the block report on this incident page very soon after she posted content… and just before she took me up upon my offer to format the citations. As I understand, her issue is that 1) it went very fast and 2) she would have preferred that it went to WP:Mediation, per one of her latest postings on this - item #1. She has said that she feels I should be investigated about:

1. Whether I did anything wrong in the manner in which I notified her about the block and then very quickly posted the ANI after the final edit?
2. Should I have taken this to another venue instead of issuing the request to block at ANI?

User talk:Henia Perlman#The block is a summary (with diffs) of the warnings and activity that resulted in me posting a request to block on June 19th, which is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Request block of User:Henia Perlman. The ongoing editing issues are discussed throughout Talk:The Holocaust, but the specific edit in question is discussed here and here, regarding the final edits: this edit (08:43, June 19, 2017 ct‎), which I reverted (09:34, June 19, 2017 ct), and this edit (10:51, June 19, 2017‎ ct), which I reverted a few minutes after it was made here (10:53, June 19, 2017 ct).

As a side note, she has not been performing edits since the 31-hour block, and is instead posting proposals for edits on the article talk page.

Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have no idea even what's being requested here, but please, please can we not have this end again with a block of an intelligent, good-faith editor who's having trouble learning her way around? (Later: After looking around a bit more, it does seem like Henia Perlman is preoccupied with vindication in the matter of her prior block, or something, and that never ends well. Our focus here should be on getting her to realize that that it's nothing anyone will care about a month from now, and she should just forget about it.) EEng 01:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

EEng#s, I am absolutely not asking for a block, nor any sanction against Henia. I am doing a self-report to see if there's something I did wrong. Is self-report the wrong term? Again, it is to determine:

1. Whether I did anything wrong in the manner in which I notified her about the block and then very quickly posted the ANI after the final edit?
2. Should I have taken this to another venue instead of issuing the request to block at ANI?

It seems that she needs to have that done to move on. Any suggestions to help resolve this are greatly appreciated! I haven't been successful in my attempts to try to move this on - like this. I am stumped. I am lost. I feel bad and I don't know what to do to move this on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging a few people from the earlier thread who might be able to give Henia some helpful words: Rivertorch, Seraphim System, Mathglot. EEng 03:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to an editor who is having trouble learning their way around, but that isn't why this block was imposed. There was a very clear proposal under discussion at AN/I regarding a voluntary Article Ban. There has been a lot of good faith extended and assumed, but the discussion at AN/I wasn't ambiguous — the editing at the Holocaust article has been disruptive, and it is not a good article to learn on. I don't think CaroleHenson acted wrongly here. To help Henia, I will say that any discussion at AN/I is serious, and the community worked out a voluntary article ban proposal as an alternative to indefinitely blocking a new editor. We want Henia to have an opportunity to get used to how things work here, but that doesn't mean the discussion isn't serious. If an admin issues you a final warning, and there is an open discussion at AN/I about a voluntary article ban, and you agree to it, and then edit the article you will get blocked. That's how you learn. Asking for justice against our admins (who are much beloved) at AN/I usually doesn't end well, so the sooner we move on from this, the better for Henia. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, EEng.

If someone doesn't mind taking a look at the questions, that would be great. I think the issue was that she didn't feel she should be blocked for making edits that were not meant to be unhelpful and that there should be another official remedy other than moving to blocking if the edits were not meant to be disruptive.

Regarding Mediation, my understanding is that is for content disputes - to resolve disputes regarding specific language in an article... which is not the issue here.

This issue seems to fall into the category of conduct disputes - and the page discusses the use of templates (which I did) and WP:ANI. Perhaps, I could have posted a message on the ANI requesting assistance, rather than requesting a block in cases like this. It would truly be helpful to get input about whether there was another approach I could have taken. That was my intention for the posting, because I think answering the questions will help both Henia and me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get an edit conflict and my posting was made on top of Seraphim System's comment... which appears to answer the questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I pretty much bowed out of it after Henia posted a rambling message on my talk page saying that other editors at The Holocaust "see [her] as a threat". I replied to her, offering what I hoped were helpful words. I was pretty frank, though. My advice hadn't seemed to be having a positive effect, and she had appeared to be grasping at straws since her block, distrustful of people (such as CaroleHenson) who had gone out of their way to help her and shopping around in some sort of futile quest for...I don't know what. Vindication? It didn't make sense to me, and I had begun to dread logging in for fear of finding that more drama awaited me. I really don't have anything else to offer, helpful or otherwise. Henia will either move on from her block and make a concerted effort to become a competent Wikipedia editor or she won't. Calling for investigations isn't productive. Does anyone really have time for this?

I'd like to offer a word or two to CaroleHenson, who feels bad but shouldn't. Rarely have I seen such forbearance directed toward a new user whose edits are having a disruptive effect, and CaroleHenson, you were a big part of that. You made a concerted effort to help a newbie, and when that appeared to be failing, you acted with the best interests of the project in mind. You did nothing wrong, and there's no need to second-guess yourself. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Heartfelt agreement with that word or two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but how do you feel about all those other words? EEng 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I was the admin who gave the 31 hour block originally to Henia regarding their editing on The Holocaust, after multiple editors, admins and non-admins, advised her to stop. I feel like a lot of editors have gone out of their way to try to help Henia, some offering mentoring which they seems to take up, but have fault with at the same time. Henia's last rather lengthy post on my talk page here: [1] brings up a number of these same concerns that CaroleHenson mentioned. Henia is an editor that I also feel will be a great help in the future with their knowledge and information, and hopefully the people they have working with them helps out. Carole, you've had the patience of a saint in helping her, and I don't see that you've done anything remotely wrong. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone that contributed to this issue. As I understand it, I followed the processes correctly, which means that in addition to discussion on talk pages, I properly used templates to warn about the issue on her talk page, and followed the block policy correctly. As I summarized (and no one disagreed), Mediation is for content disputes and this was a conduct dispute, so mediation is not the proper venue for these kinds of issues. To this point, I have not heard of alternative strategies.

As an FYI, I am not an administrator, but I am a seasoned editor and NewPages reviewer.

I totally agree with EEng that it's nothing anyone will care about a month from now and RickinBaltimore that Henia is an editor that I also feel will be a great help in the future with their knowledge and information, and hopefully the people they have working with them helps out. (Her latest mentor added a post several days ago to Henia on their talk page.) There are many other nice and encouraging comments that have been made and I am happy to summarize them on Henia's talk page.

EEng#s, Is this sufficient input? Is there anything else that is needed to resolve this issue?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but because of my nobly gracious bearing I'm often mistaken for one. You showed great patience in an extremely frustrating situation. While it's always possible to say, "Well, you could have done this or that as well, before going to ANI", you did nothing wrong. EEng 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman posted the following at RickinBaltimore's page:

"Prior to imposing a block, administrators are expected to be fully familiar with the circumstances of the situation." You wrote: "My reason for the block was that Henia was continuing to make the same edits that they were repeatedly told by multiple editors (including an admin) not to make."

Please, specify

1) "the same edits",

2) the name of the admin who repeatedly told me not to do the same edit,

3)why was I guilty of socking.

Thank You.

Cordially. Henia Perlman (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

So, I posted it here for continuity of discussion - and hopefully to resolve this once and for all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman:

1) "The same edits" means that you continued to add content that was not ready for the article and was not properly cited. See the warnings on your talk page, for instance.

2) Ealdgyth is an admin

3) Socking refers to WP:Sockpuppetry, which was discussed at User_talk:RickinBaltimore#Rachelle/Henia..... You used two different accounts, the Rachelle Perlman account and the Henia Perlman account after you were blocked. We've been all through that - you explained it had something to do with a computer issue - and now that you're using just one account, we're good on that count as long as you just use one account.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I am asking RickinBaltimore to answer my questions.

Because of my physical disabilities, I cannot interact with everybody.

Thank you.

Cordially. Henia Perlman (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Henia, I want to apologize for a delay in getting back to you. Weekends are a very slow time for me on Wikipedia, as I'm busy with family stuff, and it's hard for me to jump on frequently. Carole did however summarize exactly what I was going to respond with. The block was originally for your conduct with disregarding editors asking you to use sourcing, and this was after multiple warnings and requests to not do so. As Carole stated, Ealdgyth is an admin, and they explicitly told you that you needed to work with the community on this issue. As for the multiple accounts, I was perfectly OK with your explanation on what happened, and I know you're just using this account now. I'm not going to be monitoring this or my talk page much today or tomorrow, since I'll be busy, but anyone here can assist you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Good morning Ricki and all,

It is very hard for me to keep up with daily/hourly comments in this site, or any other.

I understand the solidarity behind Carole, a very experienced editor.

I would like to focus only on the 2 incidents that directly caused the block.

It seems to me that I was specifically and immediately blocked, because

1. I didn't provide sources for Shanghai's statement, and continue to post this statement;

2. Carole mentioned Ealdgyth, an admin, in her request to block me, because Ealdgyth objected to posting, after Shangah.

RickinBaltimore, is it correct?

Thank you,

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason for the block was due to the repeated posting of information that was not properly sourced, and despite a number of editors asking you to please refrain from posting it until you had the discussion on the information you were posting. This was not immediate, as the issue appears to have been on going for a few weeks prior to my issuing the block on June 22nd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman,

1) You are not listening or understanding - and I don't know why you need for Rick to restate, once again, what the issue is. (See his initial comment here.) The reason why you have been blocked has been stated over and over again - endlessly - including in this incident and User talk:Henia Perlman#The block. I don't know how many times you need to be told this before it's understood. See WP:NOTGETTINGIT.

The incident that directly caused your block was when you went ahead and made changes to The Holocaust rather than finishing the discussions about the two ways to prevent the block on this AN/I forum.

2) It is insulting to the people that work this page and the process to say, I understand the solidarity behind Carole, a very experienced editor. You can make yourself a victim, or you can be someone who learns from your experiences.

Your inability to get that you might have done something wrong... and that it was a part of a pattern, not just the Shanghai edits raises concerns about your ability to capture key concepts here at Wikipedia.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Carole, thank you for your thoughtful answer.

Can you please take out of from your archive the discussions we had about the Shanghai posts, and repost them in your talk page, as I would like to better understand what happened there?

"The incident that directly caused your block was when you went ahead and made changes to The Holocaust rather than finishing the discussions about the two ways to prevent the block on this AN/I forum."

Well Carole, I thought I would have a reasonable time to think about the 2 proposal and the block. I was not informed of a deadline, and I was waiting for one.

I see no harm in me being a slow reader, because of my physical disabilities.

I can go forward after I read again the posting about the Shanghai postings, now in your archive, and going over every disruptive post, that you took the time to mention.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, and your cooperation to help me better understand.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman, All the posts that you made to my talk page are at User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 12 and User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 13, but I don't see that the Shanghai edits were specifically discussed there.

All the information specific to the block is at User talk:Henia Perlman#The block, including the two sections of Talk:The Holocaust that discussed your final edits. There were also the final and "only" warnings posted to your talk page.

There was never an issue about you taking more time to review the proposals - and you never asked for time to consider the proposals. This had nothing to do with timing. You were blocked for additional improper edits. See [2].

I am done with this issue, Henia. If you continue to talk about how I improperly blocked you, I will refer to the summary on your talk page and this ANI discussion. Other than that, I am done and see no use in my continuing to repeat myself with ZERO impact.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Folks, I hate to be ants at a picnic – especially since when issues with this user first popped up, everyone agreed that, aside from some problems, she was a good faith editor with a lot to offer Wikipedia – but when I looked through Henia Perlman's talk page commentary at that time, I got the distinct impression that this could be pretty sophisticated trolling, as opposed to a newbie user lost in the maze of Wikipedia. I would ask that someone who hasn't looked into this before take a closer look with that in mind, because I'm far from convinced that the editor is what she claims to be. But then, I may just be overly suspicious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, I can see how you might think that. Or, a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT / WP:CIR.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Carole, to your two questions at the outset above: (I am responding as an involved non-admin)

1. No, nothing wrong in the manner which you notified HP of the block.
2. No. What other venue has juridiction and actionability to block someone, if not ANI? Bringing an issue here is not equivalent to issuing a block; you merely raised the question. You could have been unanimously shouted down by a tsunami of admins, had that been appropriate, but instead a block was issued. This was the right venue. (As a postscript, Henia's edit pattern was such that a 31-hour block wasn't even sure to get noticed, and as I recall, she later said it had expired before she realized it had been in effect.)

Just a few observations in order to try to bring anyone encountering this for the first time up to speed quickly. I have offered suggestions to Henia in the past which I hope were helpful, as numerous other editors have. At the same time I tried to offer some some non-sugar coated reality-checks that I realized might sound harsh to her but which I thought would be beneficial in helping her avoid an impending block which I saw coming clear as day, by contrasting her expertise in one area (Holocaust studies) with her neophyte status in another (Wikipedia). I tried to explain how others might see her activities at WP as being disruptive in a way that she might not understand and could easily interpret as ganging up on her or bullying, although that was certainly not the case. Far from being the latter, Henia is in my experience the editor who has received the most forbearance and largest number of offers of help of any editor that I have seen. Imho her responses have been sporadic and unpredictable, ranging from obsequious gratitude to dark innuendo of conspiracy (both of which I've been on the receiving end of), with a dash of mentor-[s]hopping without a clear rudder being established anywhere, nor even an anchor, so she ends up blown about by the winds or whatever the last breeze some editor or admin blew her way. My working theory up till now has been that she is what she appears to be, a Holocaust expert, with some issues of being frazzled by technology and computers, not to mention Wikipedia's set of policies and guidelines which takes a while to negotiate, and perhaps also her age (by her own say-so) and perhaps also by other personal issues that generally make things even harder for her. I have to admit not having considered Beyond My Ken's theory up till now, and reading it gave me a jolt, and now I can't "unthink" it, and don't know what to think now. I still believe it's probably CIR and a steep learning curve, but in the end as one frustrated editor remarked after giving up trying to help, (paraphrasing from memory): "In the end, it doesn't matter what the reason for the problem is."

I think Carole raised the issue here at ANI pointing at herself out of an abundance of caution in an attempt to be more than fair to an editor who had discussed raising "investigations" (here and here) into Carole's activities and those of other editors interacting with her (how I escaped that list I'll never know) and who may be too new here and thus unfamiliar with the rules and conventions at ANI to raise an issue herself. Having said that, if Henia is serious about having various editors investigated, it is for her to say whether Carole's formulation of the issue represents her concerns, whether she (Henia) wishes to continue on with this statement of it or take it up some other way. As far as I'm concerned, given Carole's statement of the issue at top of section, there's nothing remotely to be reproached here.

(Note: Pinging Ealdgyth who has been mentioned in this thread, but not notified I believe.) Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional background and weighing-in on the topic. The thing is: the nature of her edits were abundantly clear. 1) She continued to be warned about adding content that was not properly cited (on French and English Wikipedia) and was given offers to help format the citations, and 2) posted content that was not ready or appropriate for the article: a) too much detail for an overview article, b) fringe theories, c) continuing to add content that was discussed as problematic on the article talk page - or continuing to question why it was problematic, and d) adding content that was not ready because it was poorly constructed / edited (and received offers to work on this by others, which she ignored). Based upon previous comments, she seems to think that other editors should be cleaning up her edits. The fact that she cannot see that these are issues means to me that if she hadn't been blocked, she'd still be trying to make problematic edits. In addition, she is not understanding very clear points that have been made to her repeatedly at Talk:The Holocaust. If she doesn't like an answer, she has a habit of asking the question over and over again... on the article talk page or by posting messages on multiple user's talk pages to the point that users that once helped her are now ignoring her.

I have also seen that she does shop for someone to adopt or mentor her... but once someone agrees to help, it seems that their advice or suggestions are completely ignored. She has not responded to comments and suggestions from her most recent mentor, ONUnicorn, on their talk page.

I have been the eternal optimist, thinking that it just needed to be explained differently and she'd get it... but she's not getting it, and doesn't want to get it... whether it's due to trolling or CIR. If it's CIR, I feel really bad for her. If she's trolling, she has been highly effective at being disruptive and must be laughing at us quite a bit. Whatever the cause, though, this has been disruptive, time-consuming, and exhausting and, based upon her endless questioning why she was blocked, even now, I don't see an inkling that she's open to self-reflection.

I don't know how we prove trolling, but since she has stated herself that she has competence issues regarding Wikipedia (most recently here and here) + isn't working with her mentor, can we come up with a solution to resolve this (e.g., topic ban for The Holocaust, warning about needing to actively work with a mentor, warning about WP:LISTENING, other)?–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi all

I don't want anymore to investigate Carole's actions.

Carole, you made a great impact.

I have been reading all your links, and those by Simon, Mathglot, Ealdgyth and others.

Carole, I am getting it.

And you noticed: I am not editing.

My only goal: I do want to help improving content, like all of us.

Carole, sorry:

I posted all the citations for you to format about Shanghai, in Talk page of Holocaust, and not at your talk user page.

I wanted to provide Ealdgyth the citations.

Mathglot:

I have read very carefully all your thoughtful postings.

I admit: I should have waited before posting about Shanghai, without citations.

"b) fringe theories"

I gave what I believed to be reliable sources to my proposal for new lead:

ushmm, Elie Wiesel, Berenbaus and others.

Holocaust history is very complex, and has been the subject of many controversies.

Historiography of Holocaust has been evolving very fast in the USA, especially in the last five years.

I have been keeping up with that.

It has been very interesting.

"She has not responded to comments and suggestions from her most recent mentor, ONUnicorn, on their talk page."

I have responded.

I don't laugh at anybody.

Mathglot and others: I cannot respond to all your thoughtful postings.

I can read and type only during a certain amount of time.

I am still traveling.

I do understand the frustrations that I have caused.

I apologize for that.

Thank you all.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I continued reading articles in wiki, and those relevant to editors who are experts.

Mathglot, I found out that the lead in 2004 was: The word Holocaust (Greek, "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering") was introduced in the late 20th century to refer to the attempt of Nazi-ruled Germany to exterminate those groups of people it found "undesirable".

I printed the 51 pages of the current Holocaust article, and read them.

I don't have the time and physical endurance to be involved.

Be well.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I struck out the request for a warning / other.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia, if you're monitoring this, I have a specific question for you regarding Historiography of Holocaust has been evolving very fast in the USA, especially in the last five years. Please see your Talk page. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

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

---

In Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, user Neptune's Trident continues to delete what's confirmed by a reliable source (insteat of go talk page and discuss it as I have offered). No reliable sources from mr. Neptune's Trident, and there is edit war going on.--82.208.100.79 (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If you are proposing to change an article and another user has objected to the changes, it's your responsibility to discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page and gain consensus for the changes. It takes two to edit-war, so I suggest that you open a thread on the talk page and wait for a discussion to begin. Unless the information relates to unsourced or poorly-sourced claims about a living person, there's no urgent need to force the change to happen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I started a thread on talk page before I came to administrators' noticeboard, but the response was clearly negative.--82.208.100.79 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• This unregistered user keeps insisting that this film is a horror film and this is the supposed reliable source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2012/07/film_club_-_twin_peaks_fire_wa.html

A blog on the BBC website. Yet nowhere in the link is this film listed of classified as a horror film, simply point that out area out where it says it is classified as horror on that blog listing of the BBC website. Neptune's Trident (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• David Lynch's magnificent 1992 horror movie. is what this link says. IMDb says the same, for example.--82.208.100.79 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Much of IMDb is user-generated content, which makes it even less suitable for Wikipedia than a BBC opinion column. Regardless, the place to have this discussion is the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

At least I have BBC on my side. Neptune's Trident has nothing but his own words. And I don't want to discuss it anymore, it's obvious that if one deletes a sourced opinion he must provide his own sources. I haven't seen any sources. So the violation is not on my side anyway.--82.208.100.79 (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't actually have BBC on your side. The source uses doesn't mention or label that the movie is a horror movie. Go to the talk page and get a consensus or drop the stick and move on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The source provided says "The second Kermode Uncut Film Club choice is David Lynch's magnificent 1992 horror movie. Watch this introduction and let me know what you think of the film." Mark Kermode is the BBC's top film critic, and arguably one of, if not the, top film critics in the UK. If he labels something a horror film and the BBC is happy to print it as such, that would generally suffice as a reliable source that its a horror film, absent anything contradictory. (Being Lynch of course, sources from the time of release didn't really know what to make of it, subsequent analysis/reviews generally come down to noir thriller/horror, leaning one way or other depending on who is doing the reviewing.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How is this not a content dispute? If there's an edit warring problem it should reported to the appropriate board. Everything else here is just genre war BS. I suggest this be closed and routed to appropriate venues. Valeince (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Charlo Greene

I've brought this up here in the past, per this discussion and no action was taken. The question of sockpuppetry was also brought up, but I think this may just be a case of a few people coming to Wikipedia with an agenda.

Long story short, the user AlaskanCannabis has repeatedly tried to add negative information to the article for Charlo Greene, sourcing it to things like a Reddit AMA and an occasional news story. The claims are of things like her stalking and harassing someone (including making rape threats), of her being a scam artist, and the like. It's all extremely weak sourcing and the main thing they've tried to use is a Reddit AMA that has someone posting news articles and making their own claims from said articles. I've tried explaining to them several times that we can't include negative content without a heck of a lot of coverage due to BLP guidelines and it needs to be extremely carefully written at that. It's not that I have any love for Greene, it's just that I don't think that claims of this nature have any place on Wikipedia without a huge amount of coverage to justify inclusion purely because it's the type of stuff that people love to sue over.

Recently they tried adding information about the Reddit AMA to the page with this edit and they posted a comment to my talk page saying that not including this information makes it promotional. I'll be very honest, their sole purpose for being here seems to be to include this information and I've outright warned them now that they are running the risk of getting blocked. Personally, I'd highly endorse a block right here and now - the only reason they don't have one right now is that I'm involved with this and want any block to be on the up and up. I don't think that they have anything to contribute to Wikipedia that won't be negative coverage of Greene. I really don't think that this should close without them being blocked, as they've been warned in the past about this here and a post at BLP/N ended with people agreeing that the content had no reason being on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

While bearing in mind WP:BITE, their attitude doesn't show that they are willing to take on board the advice of others. Not to mention their singlemindedness with regards to Charlo Green more or less sums up WP:SPA. Anything less than a commitment to mentorship and a 6 month topic ban from Charlo Green should be met with a block. If they're here with an agenda then this would effectively be the same as an indefinite block. If they do intend to be a contributing member of the community, then this should show that intention. Blackmane (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So Rampart is allowed to have a special section to discuss their AMA, but Charlo Greene can't? Everything I have posted has been well documented by the Alaska media, not sure why Tokyogirl79 keeps making up falsehoods in order to help protect Charlo's image. Tokyogirl79 seems to have no interest in making a page for Rocky Burns, or any of the other individuals involved. And now she wants to have me banned because I don't agree with her? How ridiculous. It's obvious your motives are politically motivated based upon the subjects race and/or gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlaskanCannabis (talk • contribs) 03:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Throwing the "you are politically motivated to attack based off the subject's race/gender" card is not going to go over well here, as it is a personal attack on editors. Please refrain from useless attacks like your last sentence. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've answered this at my talk page, but frankly Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and in order to include even small bits of controversy (freaking out at an AMA and changing things to swear words can be seen as controversial) we need to have a lot of coverage that goes into depth and shows that it's notable in the long run. Most times when someone acts erratically like this, that activity isn't considered noteworthy until some time later, when people write about someone's overall life and actions. Sometimes actions in the short run can be notable, but it has to have almost global coverage or it otherwise runs the risk of smacking of WP:TABLOID. I just don't think that you're really here for the right reasons, honestly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:DePiep

Complaint

I have a complaint against User:DePiep of uncivility, and particularly of edit-warring and personal attacks. My apologies for the length, but as DePiep has been a persistent problem I believe full documentation is necessary.

On 1 June DePiep – self-declared as "recently entered the earthquake domain, coming from the physics department (actually: as a formatting fanatic)" (diff) — began opining at Talk:Seismic scale (diff) that the symbol "M", as used in identifying earthquake magnitude scales, should be italicized. (Related comments subsequently made at Template_talk:Infobox_earthquake#Magnitude_notation.)

He has subsequently argued at Talk:Seismic scale#It would be better to use "Richter" instead of "Richter scale" (6 July diff) that "scale" should be removed from various section headers in that article, and even article titles (e.g.: Moment magnitude scale -> Moment magnitude).

I have expressed reservations about some of his ideas, and as I am the only other commentator I would expect that he understands that he does not have consensus. (Especially as "pushing change without consensus" was the very point he complained of regarding someone else on the 4th [diff].)

Nonetheless, on 22 June he "boldly" – which is to say, without discussion or consultation specific to that page – added a formatted "M_L" symbol to Richter magnitude scale (diff). When Dawnseeker2000 reverted (diff), with the edit summary "Please wait until an agreement on formatting is made, DePiep restored his edit (diff) just fifteen minutes later, with the edit summary "??? This is how we write M_L. What is your point?".

Recently (6 July) he began editing the documentation for Template:M (a template I have been preparing for readily formatting and tracking the use of earthquake magnitude scales) by relabeling links to "Richter magnitude scale" to "Richter magnitude" (diff. When I reverted (diff), asking him to discuss if he has an issue, he restored his edit (diff), saying: "I already *did* discuss & source (ISO, SI) this." He certainly did not discuss that change at Template talk:M, where his only contribution to that point (see history) was to assert that using a magnitude symbol without an equal sign (i.e.: "M_w") is a "Major error". (It appears that he considers his remarks at Talk:Seismic scale enough discussion for proceeding.)

He made some additional edits, and when I reverted one, asking him to "Discuss before resuming", he again restored (diff), with the edit summary: "Undid revision 789694974 by J. Johnson (talk) per WP:BOLD and WP:BRD: improvements. Don't just blindly say 'undiscussed so bad' Why do you revert this table cleanup?"

Since the 8th he has been heavily editing Template:M itself (see history), which has caused some breakage. When I reverted his initial edit (diff), with the comment "Please do not break the template simply because you don't like theformat.", he reverted (six minutes later, diff), with the comment: "Undid revision 789694079 by J. Johnson (talk) 1. I did not break anything. 2. the testcases page now is double again. 3. another personal jab in your es (why?)". At which point I felt it was useless to chase after all his edits. I reverted several edits this morning, but he immediately undoes them (see history).

On 9 July DePiep revised the use of Template:M in some 50 earthquake articles, and around 30 lists of earthquakes. While these edits may have indeed been improvements, again it was without discussion. When Dawnseeker2000 (who has been maintaining many of those articles and lists) objected (at Template_talk:M#Major error, (diff)), DePiep's response (diff)was to evade responsibility and blame it on me: "I used the style as provided & documented by this template (created by J. Johnson)." (To forestall DePiep's anticipatable retort: Dawnseeker2000 is not complaining of the formatting produced by the template, but of how you used template.)

All of the above demonstrates demonstrates a lack of respect for other editors, and for established norms of conduct, all constituting an in-grained lack of WP:CIVILITY. Additionally, DePiep has repeatedly insinuated that I have attacked him. E.g.:

• At Talk:Seismic scale#Lede, when I suggested that attempting to "define, measure, and describe" magnitude in the lede was "rather pedantic", he construed it as "A jab that could be perceived as a personal attack even." (diff),

• At Talk:Moment_magnitude_scale#Distracting_editsummary_vs._clear_statements he stated (diff) that an edit summary of mine (diff) "introduces a distraction of the topic even introducing Accusation about personal behavior that lack evidence."

• At Template_talk:M#Major error: "your responses are touching WP:PA, WP:BF, WP:CIVIL trespassing without being helpful or improving." (diff)

I believe a close examination of each of these cases shows that his imputation of a personal attack is baseless.

For all of his incivility and failure to respect other editors, and for his particular disruptions, I ask that user DePiep be banned from making any edits to Template:M, or its documentation, or to any article or list regarding earthquake magnitudes or magnitude scales. Because of his long history of incivility and personal attacks (see block log), I ask that this ban be made permanent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Due to commitments in RL, I cannot comment earlier than later today (UTC). -DePiep (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to hear from DePiep but this does not look good — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI can be harsh, and I'm not here to throw anyone under the bus (I've been the subject here a few times). I usually don't have much to say, but let me start by saying that up until this post, I considered DePiep's stance and tone a little unusual. This was the case in an edit summary after I'd reverted a change of his on Richter magnitude scale with the explanation to wait until we have an agreement on formatting. This was soon reverted with the tail end of his summary saying "what is your point?". That's fine I suppose, but I did not challenge or even attempt to communicate about it because it was clear to me from what he chose to say that we were nowhere near on the same page and that it would have been fruitless to press.

I can also say that the work that I've seen J. Johnson do with earthquake prediction and the new template places him in a very small club. Only a few editors that I know of can dive as deep as he has into these topics. Most of what he works on is beyond the scope of my understanding, so I casually observe and rarely comment.

So for my final few words, I'd like to say a few things not about this dispute, but about this project and the people that make it happen. Now keep in mind that I've been the topic here at ANI. Not necessarily for these reasons, but I've been impolite and rude during some clashes with editors during 10 years of editing. I have a mark on my block log. I did not know of DePiep's block history until now, but I think there's something to be said about it. I see it as an indication of something going on under the hood and/or a possible lack of ability to learn from one's mistakes. To be fair, my editing style is one that usually keeps me by myself in some dark corner of WP, because that is something that helps to avoid conflict. Not always of course, but that is a strategy that usually that works for me.

Looking at the most recent item for the 3-month block last summer is the log entry "Trolling other account during ANI discussion about his trolling". We really don't see super egregious block reasons like that all that often. At least I don't. To me, that is over the top, but what bothers me the most about that incident is that DePiep probably offended another user by attempting to pipe their username in a bad light ([[User:keep your trolling to yourself if you don't want to go the same way|Andy Dingley]]). When asked about it, he lied about how it came to be, by saying it was a copy and paste issue. That's nonsense. We've all seen editors get into disputes here and have heated conversations, but lying is a problem that probably shouldn't be overlooked. Looking at the current issue alongside last year's, I'm seeing an editor that should be watched and contemplated. Dawnseeker2000 02:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

re the edits in Richter magnitude scale, a nice example of uncontroversial (BRD) editing. 1, me, 2. your rv 3, my rv. I clearly added (not changed) the Richter symbol (M_L ) to the lede, as other magnitude scales have (Surface wave magnitude, Moment magnitude scale). I claim this is simple article improvement, outside of the formatting discussion, and so not to be pre-discussed but can simply be done by WP:BRD. (The actual format I choose to use is the same JJ had coded before in {{M}} for Richter). OTOH, your es Please wait until an agreement on formatting is made is referring to the open formatting discussion. Sure that issue is to be decided, but that does not mean we can not add or use a symbol (aka label, denotion) meanwhile. Had you edited the symbol into some other format, say "RL" (which very well could be sourced & motivated too), that would have been fine there even while touching the open controversy. Just don't remove the symbol.

re the work that I've seen J. Johnson do with ... the new template places him ...: Yes, I can agree. I actually edited articles to use the template as J. Johnson defined it!

re your restarting of a closed discussion: Please reconsider and remove. -DePiep (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Takes more time to reply than expected, sorry. I am working on it. -DePiep (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reply by DePiep.

Allow me to describe this issue from my perspective. I know this reply is very long, but allow me a 'better safe than sorry' in this.

Core topic was and is is the writing of earthquake strengths, think Richter and MMS, in wording, formula and sequence: using symbols, formatting with/without uppercase, italics & subscripting and in wording. Apart from this, broader area is WP:EARTHQUAKE.

Initially, I added talkpage items re the topic on {{infobox earthquake}}, seismic scale and template:M. This way, posts did overlap & cross-reference. My approach was: treat as physical quantity, as described in the authoritative SI-brochure. Later on I added ISO 80000 [3], nicely advised by J. Johnson (JJ), into this recap. My core topic proposals were and are "under discussion", that is: no consensus for change. I did not implement any such proposal.

Innocent edits: I also did edits in the earthquake domain not concerning the "under discussion" topic: [4] use ENGVAR in infobox (not challenged), lede (was rv'ed with a talk), sp, [5], [6] rm page from maintenance category.

Me editing Template:M: I did not change the template's function, intention, or aim. What I did edit were template-technical improvements (like: refine error message, simplify code, remove unused and double code, expand abrreviations, remove code unfit for mainspace, fix code errors, add errorhandling) [7]. In its documentation, again I did not change the essence. I did do clean up, added examples, fix spellings, add user-helpfuls, etc. [8]. None of these edits changes the template's basic documentation or regular output.

Using {{Template:M}}: Before I joined, on June 16, JJ already had announced its roll out, and later published its usage in mainspace. (Note that JJ's formatting per the template and my formatting proposal are in agreement!). Strange is that JJ here says a template I have been preparing (sic): it was live in mainspace in ca. 150 articles. The template did not claim any restriction for its usage. So I recently edited ~50 articles already using that template, following all its intents and purposes (and, not coincidentally, the ordering as done by USGS) e.g., [9], [10].

So far. Edits outside of the under-discussion topic can't reasonably be called controversial, or editwarring. There is no blanket rule to say: you should discuss each and every edit first. WP:BOLD and BRD will do.

Now about the controversial topics & edits. Sure there are edits I better had made differently or not at all, for various reasons: like [11], [12]. In other words: these are incidents.

Edits by JJ making an issue personal: Your personal conception of "truth" is irrelevant in es. First ignoring SI and ISO sources, then turning this as if it is something "personal". I already noted this here.

Here JJ writes: Before you over-extrapolate your physics in an area new to you. Above, in this ANI, in paragraph 2: DePiep, self-declared as "recently entered the earthquake domain, coming from the physics department" is used as a argument somehow in ANI? While actually, here is the literal example from WP:NPA#WHATIS: "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?". (I also note: The diff is possibly off-topic, or even can be read supporting my layman's point in there).

In one reply [13], JJ says both is just your personal opinion and you have not cited or provided any basis or authority for your opinion other than to chant "SI! SI! ISO!".. So while ignoring the sources I mention, blaming me for not mentioning sources and then attacking the strawman. Note the dismissive wording "to chant".

Before JJ and I met, an other editor is addressed And you are being a jerk [14]. Not that I went to search for this, but it's hard to not-read it.

Blaming me for starting talks. In this very ANI post ([15]), paragraph 2, 3 and 4, JJ blames me for starting a talk and arguing. [DePiep] began opining at Talk:Seismic scale that ..., He has subsequently argued ..., I have expressed reservations about .... Why is this an argument in ANI at all I wonder, other than to compliment me for going to Talk in the first place??? Some talks I started: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. AFAIK, I have not made any edit based on any inconclusive talk I opened.

Touch of WP:OWN: JJ seems to think that by saying "Do not edit this", no edit may be done. However, that is not how WP work. For example, this reply says For now, leave it alone as a command (while the better, harmless and non-controversial edit is to switch it off for being untested and unfit for mainspace). Also commanding is Absolutely do not ... (it should be by argument of course) [22].

Reverted with the wrong reason: Six edits by me were reverted in a pattern. In the es, JJ mentioned a reason to revert, but that reason was incorrect. These are the edits: rv1-2-3: no, the template was not broken, no it was not an "I don't like the format" (turning this personal btw), and yes there was an an improvement. rv-4, rv-5 (the example was sourced in the es), rv-6 - it was and is. It looks as if they were reverted without having any consideration wrt the actual change.

Blanket complaint. JJ's approach is throwing all my edits into one basket. Edits should be differentiated. In the 2nd sentence opening line: DePiep has been a persistent problem is personal (in itself not that noteworthy, but it relates to the whole approach).

Round up. All in all: Bad edits, as exceptions, I already admitted. Controversial edits hardly occurred, but instead were extensively addressed on talkpages. Edits of non-controversial nature (e.g., improve existing documentation, template-technical edits, use template) were done using existing templates, talks and practices, for example as created and promoted by JJ. Usually these are fit for BOLD and BRD. Claiming that each and every BOLD/BRD resolvable edit is under this ANI-complaint is not fair, and so is the editwarring and not-talked accusation that follows that misconception. I did point to some unhelpful edits by JJ, both by making things personal and by making less correct edits (like rv's). That are ngog presented as cut-and-dried trespassing judgements, but they do paint the atmosphere.

Re Dawnseeker2000: to speed up this posting, I will reply to their post later on.

I conclude: I fully accept that some of my 100+ edits in this area were bad up for improvement (afterwards or even beforehand). Also I tried to describe here that the other edits were either out of controversial area (BOLD and BRD acceptable), were within accepted writing (e.g., by current template usage), and other edits were about improvements of the topic in dispute (Talkpages).

I protest the approach by JJ of blanketing all my edits into one ANI complaint, for example even mentioning Talks I started as objectable. I also pointed to some unhelpful edits by JJ, both in say BRD-handling and personalising an issue (earlier; yes, pot & kettle).

How to proceed?: I think in this situation it's hard to get this WP:EARTHQUAKE area back on track in communications and article improvements between us. To allow such improvement though, I therefore propose that I voluntarily shall not edit in this area for a year. The area includes: WP:EARTHQUAKE esp wrt seismic scales, templates etc. and their talks. Unless, that is, I am explicitly invited by an active WP:QUAKE member. -DePiep (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Rejoinders

DePiep protests I have made a "blanket complaint", that I am "throwing all [his] edits into one basket." That is correct. I am not looking for relief regarding a number of individual edits ("100+"?), which would be tedious and even tendentious to raise here, but on the pattern of his behavior.

He argues that "[e]dits should be differentiated", but that is to evade the pattern of behavior. (As lawyers say: when the other side has you on the law, argue the facts; when they have you on the facts, argue the law.) Nonetheless, I do agree that patterns should have a factual basis, and a close examination of some these instances could be in order. And even welcome, as I see his interpretation of several cases as being higly skewed, even false.

Which I think touches on a key problem here: DePiep's highly skewed perception of various matters. E.g., the background I provided of where this issue started he characterizes as "Blaming [him] for starting talks.". That characterization is simply ludicrous.

Similarly for his defense of his using the template. He goes to some length to prove that it was okay to use the template, but (as I anticipated in my complaint) he still fails to understand that the issue is not the use, but how he used it.

He states: "Controversial edits hardly occurred, but instead were extensively addressed on talkpages." Apparently he does not consider reversion of his edits as an indication of controversy. Or perhaps he does not accept that as controversial unless we persist in reverting his edits. That, of course, would be edit-warring, which I and Dawnseeker2000 eschewed. I note he rejects some of my reversions as having "the wrong reason"; I don't believe the significance of a reversion depends on his assessment of the reason given.

Nor were his edits "extensively addressed on talkpages." As mentioned in my complaint: he started editing the template on the 8th, and the documentation on the 6th, while his initial edit at Template_talk:M ("Major error") does not pertain to any actual edits. Not until the 9th was there any discussion (and very thin at that) pertaining to any editing.

DePiep has offered a voluntary topic ban, but only for a year. I don't find that limitation acceptable, as I don't want to have to go through this again in a year. And it should be an enforced (non-voluntary) ban, lest he have any confusion it is at his option. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Earliest time to reply: Saturday or Sunday. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Promotional Editing on Juliet Simms

Sure Templeton is more or less a single purpose account devoted to editing Juliet Simms, a BLP (the only other edit not having to do with Juliet Simms somehow is on Aspen trees). This user is continually removing sourced content from Simms' article and replacing it with promotional prose, unsourced content, and provoking other editors while insinuating that editors are attempting to degrade or attack Juliet Simms directly.

Some edits this user has made include:

"Simms was asked on to the nationally viewed singing competition The Voice on NBC where her blind audition was aired immediately following the Super Bowl. She broke 2 download records -one for her first live show performance for her recordings of "Roxanne" and the second for the second to last live show performance of "It's a Man's World" which landed her on the front cover of USA Today the next morning. She finished as the runner up of that show, which created much controversy and media disappointment and an eventual change in the following year's accounting system to include downloads in the voting totals"

"Automatic Loveletter was the brain child of Juliet Simms having wrote or co-wrote every song that the band ever recorded...with Simms' solo career and marriage to rocker Andy Black there has been no new Automatic Loveletter music since 2011"

And "While recording she began promoting her songs through Myspace and with her band, Automatic Loveletter, quickly became the top Emo band on that platform, attracting attention from several major record labels. After showcasing for music industry icons from L.A. Reid and Jimmy Iovine to Wyclef Jean and Don Ienner she finally signed with Epic Records in 2005 where she and her band recorded a full length album with Matt Squire"

In her edit reasons, this user frequently disparages other editors, stating comments such as, "the earlier editor seems to have a problem with the religion Scientology per her edit summary statement after mentioning this she came back w/ much more on it. Also using tabloid gossip to degrade Juliet. Removed positive content." "Again the last edited removed truthful statistics and positive content with reference to her download records from the show, changes in accounting for the show - shows intent to belittle her rather than allowing the facts." "again reverting to unvandalized version to include interesting and true facts and add that Juliet was the creator of A.LL instead of saying she was the "acting front woman" written as the earlier edit by Juliet haters suggested" "Users Keepingitcool & thejulietflame are Juliet "haters" vandalizing this article by repeatedly removing interesting true content & replacing w/ tabloid sensationalism. This section calls for more info not less." "The user Keepingitcool keeps placing Scientology into this article. Because she also earlier removed other positive content I suspect an intent to belittle or besmirch Juliet. She also called the religion a cult. I suspect sensationalism" "There were several historical errors concerning record labels and who she was signed with as well an clear intent to diminish her accomplishments which I suspect was written by on of her husbands female fans who wish Juliet ill."

All of the edits in question this user had been discussing in their edit reasons were well-sourced, factual, and were not written in a way to be derogatory (for example, the BLP in question involves someone who was raised in the Church of Scientology). They do not seem to realize that the removal of their "interesting and true facts" has everything to do with the fact that they are removing sourced information that is in line with Wikipedia guidelines to replace it with lengthy, unsourced promotional prose. I reverted the edit to the more well-sourced and nonpartisan edits that had existed prior. Were these edits made by this user more nonpartisan, succinct, well-sourced and non-promotional, they would do perfectly in the article -- however, I do not believe Sure Templeton is here for encyclopedic purposes. I believe they are here to promote Juliet Simms, as their edits read less like fact and more like a fanpage. I propose that Sure Templeton be banned from the Juliet Simms article, if not the subject of Juliet Simms completely. Syd Highwind (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• I left a fairly blunt message on her talk page. I think that should serve as a strong warning and should suffice for now. Let's see where it goes from here. They aren't going to like what I had to say, but I felt that I shouldn't mince words and just lay it out there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• • I saw that, and I definitely agree that she may be associated with Juliet Simms -- the thought that she herself might be Juliet also crossed my mind very briefly. I've also read the talk page history due to the fact that it's a very problematic article and I suggested revisiting its AfD nomination on those grounds. But in the talk page she left some belligerent commentary, leveraging personal attacks toward people such as adult film actress Mary Carey, in regards to an incident that had occurred between Simms and her husband last year that Carey had witnessed. She alleged Carey was a washed up drunk attempting to cash in on Simms's fame, white knighting for Simms, and attempting to provoke people on the talk page. I think what you wrote is a good warning, but with her track record and attitude she's probably just going to retaliate somehow. If she does, I vote to ban her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syd Highwind (talk • contribs) 02:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Syd Highwind (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC) (I forgot to sign this, lol. Oh the joys of editing on mobile.)
    • We can cross that bridge if we come to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Action at WASPI

Requesting that someone take a look at the WASPI article. Currently User:Spwalshe (talk) has created the article multiple times in the face of speedy deletions and rejected drafts. Now a new editor called User:WASPI Campaign (talk) has entered the fray. I do not really know what the article in question is about, but I believe it has political overtures. Requesting that appropriate action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Username softblocked as it reads as a shared account. Page was deleted again as G11. Amortias (T)(C) 20:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Salted -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The article was one I wanted to look at and see I could write a proper version on it before I deleted, but I never got round to it. It's now at Women Against State Pension Inequality so all is well. I don't think salting is a good idea as it seems to be a valid redirect. I've created WASPI as that; obviously this is technically abuse of admin rights to edit through a protected title, so feel free to shout or serve seafood if there is a problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool, though I've got to say that User talk:Spwalshe is a walking advert for WP:WIHSD :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Loganfisc - questionable edits

Loganfisc (talk · contribs) has been creating articles about nonexistent animated TV series and today has been adding invalid TV network categories to articles about TV series. They has been warned numerous times today alone and they have neither responded nor changed their behavior. Trivialist (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. I have some doubts as to whether this person is here to contribute constructively, but I started with a short block. Let me know if it continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible sock? There was a now blocked user who used to do this. Can't remember the name.--Auric talk 15:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Steve Dunn (1990s first baseman) semi protection needed?

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

---

many different IPs are vandalizing Steve Dunn (1990s first baseman), I suspect socking. Tornado chaser (talk)

• @Tornado chaser: next time go to WP:RFPP. It is the appropriate forum for this situation and admins will help you sooner.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done one week. And yes, WP:RFPP is the preferred venue, but I won't be a slave to bureaucracy so I just did it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Daniel C. Boyer

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

---

Daniel C. Boyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I believe it's well past time for a sanction on this editor, a non-notable artist who, in blatant violations of WP:PROMOTION, inserted his name into a variety of articles, all instances of which were removed by numerous editors, and who then proceeded to attempt to reinsert his name using IPs. From 2007-2011, he also used the socketpuppet account User:Samuel O'Malley (blocked on 6 May 2011), and also apparently occasionally used the sockpuppet account User:Nothing Nobo (discarded about a month after Samuel O'Malley was blocked). The single-edit account User:Brian Mackelove may be connected as well.

This editor has been problematic for a while:

• In 2003, a discussion was opened about him on "Problem users". [23]

• An article about him, Daniel C. Boyer, was deleted in 2004 or 2005 [24]
  • The AfD seems to say 2004, but at the article link it says 2005; there appears to have been an earlier discussion in 2003, but it's unclear from the AfD page what the result of that was.

• There's an RfC/U on him from 2005 [25].

• Boyer was blocked in 2007 for this same behavior. [26],

• He was reported for it again in 2011. [27]

• I reported his user page at MfD earlier this year for its similarity to an article, but the result was "Keep". [28]
  • However, one editor in that discussion exclaimed: "This has been going on for 13 years?" (emphasis added)

Articles Boyer inserted himself into include:

• Body fluids in art – initial insertion (28 May 2016): [29]; re-insertion: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] (last: 4 June 2017)

• Surrealist techniques – initial insertion (20 September 2007): [35]; re-insertion: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] (last: 3 July 2017, article semi-protected)

• Soho Square (Manhattan) – initial insertion (18 September 2016): [46]; re-insertions: [47]; [48] (last: 2 January 2017)

• Perspiration – initial insertion (22 May 2016): [49]; re-insertion: [50]; [51]; [52]; [53]; [54]; [55]; [56] (last: 11 July 2017)

• Mat (picture framing) – initial insertion (29 November 2009): [57]; second insertion (new material; 1 December 2009): [58]; third insertion (new material, 19 October 2010): [59]; fourth insertion (new material, 31 October 2010): [60]; fifth insertion (new material, 12 October 2011): [61]; sixth insertion (new material, 24 October 2011): [62]; re-insertions: [63]; [64]; [65] (last: 18 June 2016)

• Counter pen – initial insertion (17 June 2011): [66]; re-insertion: [67] (last: 22 March 2017)

• List of Harvard University non-graduate alumni – insertion (23 May 2007): [68]; re-insertions: [69]; [70]; [71]; [72]; [73]; [74]; [75]; [76]; [77]; [78]; [79]; [80]; [81] (last: 7 January 2017)

The IPs Boyer has used include:

The list of IPs

24.247.43.72 64.94.31.206 72.52.198.58 74.66.21.209 107.77.70.114 107.77.76.60 107.77.106.32 141.219.44.104 141.219.46.59 141.219.46.62 141.219.46.65 141.219.46.68 141.219.46.74 141.219.46.79 141.219.253.152 166.216.128.11 166.216.128.13 166.216.128.15 166.216.128.16 172.56.10.50 172.56.27.245 172.56.28.171 172.56.35.210 172.56.36.122 172.56.37.28 172.56.37.237 172.58.169.115 172.58.169.196 172.58.171.64 172.58.185.35 172.58.217.103 172.58.224.105 172.58.232.23 172.58.232.72 172.58.233.31 172.58.233.81 172.58.233.193 172.58.233.248 208.54.37.211 208.54.87.171 208.54.90.173 208.68.27.63

User:Daniel C. Boyer appears to be a productive editor when self-promotion is not concerned, so I don't believe a long or indef block is warranted. I would suggest a topic ban on editing anything to do with himself, his life, his work or his activities, as well as a restriction to edit only while signed-in to his account, and not with IPs (which he does regularly, above and beyond his use of them to re-insert his name into articles). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The editor in question has been notified. [82]. I have not notified any of his IP socks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What a persistent wikilawyer! But not a very good one, I'm afraid. No wonder he didn't finish Harvard. EEng 03:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's sadder than I thought: "Attended Harvard Summer School 1997, 1998, 2001". EEng 03:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Although he hasn't responded here. on his talk page, Daniel C. Boyer accuses me of having a "vendetta" against him that has reached "bizarre proportions", and questions how "practically every IP that has ever existed" could all be his sockpuppets. [83] However, all one has to do is look at the contributions of the IPs listed and compare them to Daniel C. Boyer's own contributions to see the overlap between them.

I don't make the claim that Boyer has exclusive use of these IPs, rather I would speculate that his Internet service doesn't assign static IPs, but a new one he time uses it, so that all he has to do is not sign in to Wikipedia, and he's on any of a variety of IPs, which, in the times between, could have been used by other people. However, it's quite clear that the pattern of editing indicates that the IPs which are reinserting Boeyr's name into articles are not random people, but he, himself, avoiding scrutiny of his edits by not signing in. Many of the editors who reverted those edits have done so numerous times and will recognize the pattern. I could ping all those editors, but I don't want to WP:CANVASS, I'd prefer that neutral editors look over the evidence to see if I've presented a compelling case against Boyer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• If there was ever an editor we don't need, it's Boyer. Check this out [84]. EEng 04:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Long term problematic editing in a specific topic - check.

Multiple previous sanctions for the same behavior - check.

Absolutely no indication this is going to change without intervention - Bingbingbingbing. Support topic ban from anything remotely related to themselves, either directly or indirectly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from all autobiographical content, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per OID and Cullen. I would also support a deletion of the self-promotional user page if it were taken back to MfD. I think it violates WP:UPNO, and the previous discussion had only two participants, including the nominator. --bonadea contributions talk 08:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Only two 24 hour blocks in 13 years -- with this kind of socking? This topic ban is extremely lenient, all things considered, and I hope it is as broadly construed as possible to stop this behavior. I also support if his userpage is taken back to MfD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Difficult to meaningfully block the IPs, since they're often dynamically allocated. 95.248.201.196 (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• support and thanks to the OP for this extensive and thorough legwork. Agreed that this TBAN is very lenient. Shame on you, Daniel. We all have better ways to spend our volunteer time than dealing with your abuse of Wikipedia to promote yourself. Really. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support only because no one seems to want to just ban him outright, which is where this is going anyway, sooner or later. But the moment he steps out of line again, that should be the E-N-D. It's ridiculous. Oh, and before I forget, Mr. Boyer: Harvard Summer School students are not matriculated degree candidates, and are not alumni [85]. EEng 21:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Wow. Surprised to learn that the above is a list of "practically every IP that has ever existed". The web is quite a lot smaller than I imagined. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Indef, please Never mind the topic ban, he's been abusing multiple accounts and editing logged out to try and evade this in a clear and blatant violation of WP:SOCK. His last 100 mainspace contributions go back to 2011, and on Talk:Thompson Street (Manhattan) I see a failure to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass so his positive contributions to the project are marginal and don't outweigh the disruption, in my opinion. He needs to be kicked out now, and then an LTA page created when (not if) he evades the block by IP socking. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBan at minimum:--Indef will be good too.Editor whose sole aim is to promote himself.And I believe he needs to be kicked out right now because unlike others who only look to self-promote and quickly fall in the nets, he has managed to keep these nonsense activities going for the last decade in the guise of being a good contributor otherwise.Boyer,Obliviate! Your affection for the project is deadly.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Tban I cannot remember having run into this editor or his attempts at self promotion. If the editing-while-logged-out continues, I won't oppose any block. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Tban Repeated violations of WP:PROMOTION should not be tolerated. This user has had multiple chances and has broken the trust of the community.Knox490 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support outright indef The blatant use of socks for self-promotion violates many of Wikipedia's key guidelines, and one of the pillars that being article written from a neutral point of view. A topic ban doesn't resolve this issue. Wikipedia's not to be used for promotion, period. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• RickinBaltimore If there's not sufficient consensus for an indef, would you support the suggested TBan, rather than have the editor go unsanctioned? On my part, if the community thinks that Boyer is a net negative, then an indef would be the logical choice, which I would support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If the community chooses that option, of course I will. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 - Same question: would you support a TBan if there's not enough support for an indef? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• I would, though it's lenient in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Just ban him, or block him, or whatever

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

---

I'm proposing this explicitly because 4 of 11 editors commenting above spontaneously volunteered the idea. Anyone who wants should feel free to refine this proposal to an indefinite block, or site ban, or whatever, since I can never remember the difference – just so long as he's not bothering people anymore and inserting his name into articles and burning up the servers with his endless wikilawyering.

Pinging everyone who's commented so far: Cullen328,Bonadea,TheGracefulSlick,Jytdog,Martinevans123,Ritchie333,Winged Blades of Godric,L3X1,Knox490,RickinBaltimore,Beyond My Ken.

• Support as proposer – The socking, the self-promotion, and now he's acting crazy on my talk page. [86] He's made 60 article-space edits in 2017, and a substantial proportion are some form of self-promotion or nonsense. His useful edits aren't worth all these years of hassle. Good riddance. EEng 21:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not acting crazy on your talk page. You are bringing up a bunch completely irrelevant stuff about when the dates that certain things happened in my career, which I don't know what they have to do with anything and basing a lot of what you wrote on things you just invented. The stuff about Harvard Summer School is a bunch of hogwash. I attended Harvard Summer School for three years; so what? Can you give me the slightest information about what this has to do with anything given that it seems to be only in your head that anyone has ever said it means anything more than just this? And I have never included nonsense in any article; please provide any information to the contrary. I have only complained about the nonsense included in articles by others, including a lot by Beyond My Ken. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Your first comment here and that is what you say? I think you just put the final nail in the coffin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with attending Harvard Summer School. Inserting yourself into List of Harvard alumni based on that is, well... <sigh>. EEng 22:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I was mistakenly expecting the faintest touch of remorse, not counter-accusations of sockpuppetry. Irony overload. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - said it all above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• yep Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support if there is consensus to do so - My comment in the main thread about Boyer appearing to be a productive editor when self-promotion was not involved had to do with his contributions in the subject of Heraldry, which I am, frankly, not qualified to judge, but they seemed OK to me. If the community sees him as a long-term net negative, then a community site ban (which would be accomplished by way of an indef block) would make sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I was totally shocked that an indef block was not on the table after the list of IPs and accounts connected to him were offered as evidence. I'll say it again: 13 years!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support as I said above. If the community chose to go the route of a t-ban, while I think that was way lenient,I would of course respect it. However, it's lenient. 13 YEARS of socking and self promotion? That's enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. @Beyond My Ken The heraldry edits do seem ok but not one of them appear to be sourced. Jschnur (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Many of them have been extensively sourced. Do some research. Many of my sources in my extensive edits on heraldry were removed when extensive changes were made to the Charges article, for example, removing many of my contributions. I'm not complaining about that, but what you write isn't completely accurate. Is anyone going to even remotely discuss anything I'm bringing up or just congratulate themselves on their cleverness or sarcasm? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support (non admin vote)–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• No - Unless someone can point out disruption that isn't covered by the TBAN, then this is the more restrictive of two options that covers the same issue. TimothyJosephWood 22:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Long term and repeated socking for COI reasons needs to be treated very seriously. And the retaliatory filing below is, for me, the last straw. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - on account of #Personal Attacks by EEng below. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above - He's not here to contribute - He's here only to promote and seems he'll do anything to plaster his name everywhere, The retaliatory thread below is more than enough for a block!, Get rid. –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles

Despite the fact that User:NadirAli was warned not to edit war by User:GoldenRing just four days ago at Arbcom [87], this man has continued to do so, ignoring consensus established by at least three to four users. The issue started when NadirAli blanked a large chunk of material from the Kalash people article [88]. He was reverted by other users, including myself, but then proceeded to continue edit warring and tagging the article [89], [90], [91], [92], [93]. On the talk page of the article, he justified his inclusions by using story books and alt-right sources such as "raceandhistory.com". It seems that this individual suffers a major WP:COMPETENCE issue, which has been noted by other users before, like User:FlightTime [94]. Other users disagreed with the troublesome behavior, including User:Capitals00 and User:Anupam noted that two different held by scholars should be represented in the article and this was agreed upon. Nonetheless, NadirAli defied consensus in the talk page and gave more weight to his preferred view [95]. Countless users regularly waste their time telling this man not to edit tentenditiously on India-Pakistan articles, such as User:Joshua Jonathan [96] or User:Kautilya3 [97]. This man was banned for several years from India-Pakistan topics and doesn't follow consensus on other topics either, including articles about Star Wars, as noted by User:EEMIV [98]. Is it time for us to consider whether the project is wasting their time having to constantly block and coach this stubborn man? I'm mostly a WikiGnome but I can spot trouble when I see it. Two options - site ban or topic ban? Knox490 (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not an "edit war" across multiple pages. I have opened discussions on those two pages. The Kalash article is disputed, and as user:Mar4d pointed out, the vast majority of sources support for Animism. So mentioning most in the article, a basic fact you seem to ignore and openly reject in the article is going to be a problem for many users. The dispute is still on and I will point administrators to talk:Kalash and talk:Hindu at discussions I myself started for verification before simply believing Knox490's attack accusations. I have been on Pakistan topics for a year and a half.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thought I'd ping User:El C, User:Ohnoitsjamie, and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - 3 sysops who've blocked this man in the last year. If I listed all the sysops who've blocked this man, I'd get carpal tunnel - 17 sysops in total. Knox490 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not start any edit war with you. Check the article history. I pointed you to user:Mar4d's comments on the talk page and you left this comment in your edit summary. As such I placed the disputed tag. After that you suddenly opened an ANI. I request administrators to review the talk pages first and article history.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment In my opinion, this is a content dispute and should be treated as such. The talk page is the best venue to solve any inconsistencies, and I have already left my input there. I would not say the current article is perfect, but it is nevertheless somewhere on a middle road. Having studied the various WP:RS produced on the subject, the majority of the scholarly view suggests the Kalash religion is animistic. There are some sources which construct a link to pre-Vedic Hindu beliefs, but the connection remains vague and not as extensively discussed by sources. They are still incorporated in the text though, as they are theories. I have already indicated that the most reasonable rewrite would be one which primarily focuses on their animistic practices, and combines input from those sources which suggest a Hindu origin. The majority of the sources favour the former, so in terms of WP:WEIGHT, we should write it according to what the sources imply. I suggest that all involved users use the talk page to discuss this further. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been discussing the disputes, which you have ignored [99][100][101]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that this is a content dispute at this stage. I don't think the description "blanked a large chunk of material" is entirely fair - that diff contains a lot of changes and the movement of a large slab of material to another place in the article. I would advise NadirAli to edit carefully; I'm rather concerned when an editor claims that the "vast majority of sources" supports their view, but what they've actually done is replaced text sourced to Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia with their own text sourced to [102]. If the vast majority of sources support your view, then back your text up with your best sources, not this. If this is actually the best source you have for your position, then I think it's time to back down a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor GoldenRing:, thank you for your comment, but that is not what I was referring to. Please see the links on the talk page which I posted as well as Mar4d posts. (talk:Kalash people). Those were the ones I was referring to. The other issue I had was the disputed tag removal in the article as in the case of Zia Ul-Haq's Islamitisation (that dispute was been now long resolved). Other issues were edits like these. I have been wanting to have this article to be receive arbitrary sanctions because it has been targeted by various nationalists from Greek to Macedonian to Indian. Your help in nominating it would be useful.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor GoldenRing: These were the sources I was referring to, in addition to the ones presented by user:Mar4d (some of them may overlap) [103] [104] [105] [106][107][108][109][110]. There's many more, but I think is is good enough. Regards.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion except that I looked at some of the edits, and the editors are warring with each other, making personal comments, within the Edit summaries. This is not the best practice for anybody and could be grounds for action. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

NadirAli, you just requested article protection because you said "Greek nationalists" and "Indian nationalists" have "targeted" it. This is exactly the reason I came here - your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality should not be tolerated here and I say this as someone of Anglo-Saxon heritage. This is what got you banned from Wikipedia for years and from India-Pakistan articles. I don't think you can edit constructively here and think that sysops here should consider re-implementing that ban.Knox490 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban on all India-Pakistan articles. I have not interacted with this editor to my knowledge, but a thorough look at NadirAli's edits seems to show a battleground mentality -- he gets into arguments with people accross numerous different articles. The discussion above also seems to show that NadirAli is willing to delete information backed by reliable sources to push his own POV, rather than accept the best efforts of other users who are willing to compromise with him. This hasn't happened once, but numerous times. Looking at his block log, NadirAli has been blocked over 20 times and I think other constructive users are annoyed in having to deal with his editing behavior. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment/Question - What're your thoughts about much of that same problematic behavior -- e.g. battleground mentality, non-NPOV, non-AGF -- outside the India-Pakistan topic? --EEMIV (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I requested arbitrary sanctions (something I accidentally myself got blocked for), not page protection. Big difference. It's already been semi-protected for months. Also look at this comment by user:Dbachmann, an administrator. WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? He's stating pretty much the same thing as I am. It's been edit warred over for years before I touched the page, even if my actions can be seen as "edit warring".--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As someone who has written the history section of the FA INDIA as well as the History of Pakistan page, I can say with some confidence that as far as the content dispute is concerned, it is not all Nadir Ali's fault. The Kalash people article is one of the many articles in which India-POV editors typically find some "academic sources" and stuff the lead of the article with Indo-Aryan, "Hindu", "Vedic," etc. I've seen this for over ten years. Contrast the lead of the Kalash article on Wikipedia (which begins with: "The Kalasha are an Indo-Aryan Dardic indigenous people residing in the Chitral District of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. They speak the Kalasha language, from the Dardic family of the Indo-Aryan branch. They are considered unique among the peoples of Pakistan.[9] They are also considered to be Pakistan's smallest ethnoreligious community,[10] practicing a religion which some scholars characterize as a animism,[2][3][4] and other academicians as "a form of ancient Hinduism".) with the the New World Encyclopedia article, which is based on the Wikipedia article, and which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Although quite numerous before the twentieth century, this non-Muslim group has been partially assimilated by the larger Muslim majority of Pakistan and seen its numbers dwindle over the past century. Today, sheikhs, or converts to Islam, make up more than half of the total Kalasha-speaking population.The culture of Kalash people is unique and differs drastically from the various ethnic groups surrounding them. They are polytheists and nature plays a highly significant and spiritual role in their daily life." (See here) Do you see the difference, the subtle POV pushing in the Wikipedia article in the service of WP:Lead fixation? Nadir Ali, should no doubt not engage in edit wars, but his opponents are not innocent, just because they are paying lip-service to Wikipedia etiquette and have access to academic sources, which they are no doubt misusing. Every one should be given a warning, a stern one. No blocks or topic bans required at this stage.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Fowler&fowler:, would you and others not agree that the WikiProject Hindu needs to be taken off that talk page? It's an article about an ethnic group, not a religious group. If I were to attempt to remove it, I would be libeled once again. As examples talk:Tajik people, Talk:Pashtun people, Talk:Uzbek people, Talk:Sindhi people, Talk:Tartar people. Despite these people being primarily Muslims, I do not see them tagged with WikiProject Islam. I see this as a move of deliberate appropriation, but again would refrain from removing it for the same reasons have been astonishingly accused of (WP:BATTLEGROUND?).--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed WikiProject Hinduism banner, and I suggest no one add it again without substantial discussion and consensus on the article's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Tban. I realize that people can and do change. On the other hand, people are very often creatures of habit. User: NadirAli has been blocked a great number of times and as recently as this month he was blocked. So he is stubbornly and persistently a problem editor. I realize that people have strong feelings about religion/country and often try to impose what they wish was true rather than base matters on scholarship and the use of reliable sources. But we have to keep up our standards and not lower them. A topic ban is appropriate at this point. We can't allow people to aggressively push the use of dubious sources such as the alt-right source and the other poor source that User: NadirAli tried to use. Knox490 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban After reviewing the case and evidence, it is clear that NadirAli continues to be disruptive. NadirAli hasn't demonstrated improvement even after blocks by numerous admins, including five in 2016 and 2017, some for repeat violations after coming out of a block. The extenuating arguments made above are unpersuasive. To say some or many "academic sources" are "allegedly somehow" bad does not make sense. That is asking for a license for POV-pushing and encouragement to abandon wikipedia's content policies such as verifiability, reliable sources and NPOV. We can't pick a side if and when there is a dispute in academic sources, we summarize the sides. If some sources are to be banned from wikipedia, don't selectively delete them in some articles and keep them in others; instead, nominate that source with evidence of wiki-plagiarism, then add them to WP:PUS like admin Utcursch has done with Gyan Publishing etc. If you can't provide evidence, please don't defame living scholars and please don't disrupt. NadirAli, as mentioned above by GoldenRing, removes tertiary source such as "Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia" by James Minahan (whose publications have been favorably reviewed), and adds questionable website sources such as kaleshwelfare.org. Again shows NadirAli hasn't cared to understand content policies after past blocks, continued disruption and WP:NOTHERE. An indef block, or one where NadirAli can appeal for an admin review after 1 year of constructive editing elsewhere, seems appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

BLP Violations by Liberty7777

I noticed this on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#James White (theologian).

User:Liberty7777 has been inserting material into the BLP at James White (theologian) with citations to youtube, facebook, jihadwatch.org, conservativereview.com, etc. Using the Jihad Watch source appears to be a BLP violation, and the conservative review page does not appear to mention James White. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

...and he has kept doing it, after getting his ANI notice and Notice of discretionary sanctions.[111][112] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Spamming

Ariel password (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently adding spam links to various articles. I think they are also copyvios but I could be wrong. Since the edits aren't vandalism I brought them here to get as quick a response as possible. MarnetteD|Talk 05:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a spam-only account. You can report this to AIV. There are some Indonesian IP editors and a few logged in accounts who are spamming these links. If this is coming from the same Indonesian ISP, there's probably too much collateral damage for a range block. Edit filters and spam blacklists are probably the best solution if this keeps up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep, 'active, obvious, and persistent vandals and spammers' :) — fortunavelut luna 07:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi good too know for future reference. I found this late last night (my time) and didn't think I could use AIV. My other question is, since all of the links are for films still in the theaters, are the links copyvios that should be r/d'd. MarnetteD|Talk 15:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible legal threat on Indigo (virtual assistant)

Hi, I just came across an expired PROD tag on Indigo (virtual assistant) which Justin.mota (talk · contribs) added with the rationale: for legal reasons this page must be removed, from the owners of this application. contact [email removed but still visible on article]. Would this count as a legal threat? I'm not sure what to do in these situations, so I thought it'd be best to ask for other user's input. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like an attempt to intimidate anyone. Instead, it alludes to vague "legal reasons" as a deletion rationale. I don't think it's much different than saying, "for important reasons this page must be removed". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The PROD on the article is expired. Why not just delete the article, and the PROD, along with it? Problem solved! John from Idegon (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It is clear that this page about our virtual assistant was created by the company Artificial Solutions - the company I work for. This page needs to be deleted as soon as possible FOR LEGAL REASONS. I have requested this multiple times already, and have provided multiple email addresses to contact if there is any uncertainty. Please delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.mota (talk • contribs) 10:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justin.mota: If there truly are legal reasons for deleting the article, please communicate them to info-enwikimedia.org. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The PROD has been contested by Future Perfect at Sunrise so the only way to get the page deleted is through the articles for deletion process. Considering that the issue ended up here at the Drama Board, you might want to avoid the use of "legal reasons" as a rationale. Favonian (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Favonian: Since the prod was originally placed on 20 June, it's a little bit late to start contesting it- what, three weeks later. — fortunavelut luna 12:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the one to whom you should direct that remark, but in general: WP:DEADLINE. Favonian (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes as long as the article hasn't been deleted, it makes no sense to say the prod can't be contested. In fact even after deletion, the prod can still be effectively challenged at any time by asking for the article to be undeleted, there's no time limit. (The only exception will generally be if there's a good reason why the article needs to remain deleted.) Also the PROD process explicitly allows the uninvolved admin reviewing the prod to simply remove the prod without deleting. And likewise an admin can simply decide on their own to undeleted. Besides 20th June is misleading. It was removed by Cluebot in less than a minute. Without the prod being on the article, it's easily possible no one notice it was placed, I mean even if someone checked the article history there's little point looking every Clueboth reversion and the edit summary did not indicate a PROD was being placed. Besides it's also questionable if you need to contest a prod which was removed by Cluebot. So the more accurate time frame is about 8 days. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It had been removed by the bot you see. — fortunavelut luna 12:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

WHAT LEGAL REASONS? -Roxy the dog. bark 11:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Very loud ones, Roxy! :) — fortunavelut luna 12:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as how the alleged legal threatener has now been blocked, I suppose we will never know. Meh. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No they haven't that I see. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

So aren't we going to block for legal threats? —JJB^ers 17:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggest an immediate WP:NLT block.--WaltCip (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be COPYVIO, and judging by news coverage and reviews, I'd say it would survive an AfD. Block for legal threat. Ignore legal threat. Carry on. TimothyJosephWood 12:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Also at ticket:2017071310013168 where I pointed out how they could request the deletion but explained that it would likely be a waste of time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

To sum this up: I don't see the rationale for the PROD tagging by Justin.mota here or here a legal threat - in that it intimidates or threatens legal action against someone. Justin.mota - if there really are legal reasons that directly involve your concerns, you need to contact the correct team by emailing those concerns to info-en@wikimedia.org - they have the proper tools and training to investigate and assist you with this particular situation. Repeatedly adding proposed deletion tags to the article citing that a legal reason exists will only waste your time; following the directions I (as well as DoRD) gave you here is what you need to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Problems with the edits of the articles related to the historical figures of Vietnam

I see a lot of Chinese editors editing articles about Vietnamese historical figures in a disrespectful way. They edit figures' names and replace them with names based on their country's historical records (History is actually written by us, not them, but they edited all, they follow their own ideas without considering that what they do is wrong or right). I cannot accept this!

• They replace the name "Vietnam" or "Đại Cồ Việt" by the name "Annam" (In Vietnamese mind, "Annam" is the name referring to Vietnam used by French colonizers to stress that we are their slaves). This is disrespectful!

I know that the Chinese hate the Vietnamese and they always consider Vietnamese their descendants, slaves, dogs. But stop dreaming now, this is international encyclopedia, not Chinese subjective encyclopedia! Everyone needs to know truths, not dreams drawn by the Chinese about us! I'll re-edit all but please ban the Chinese editors that insulted our history. Thanks Huy Trịnh (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Whether you can accept this isn't all that important, whether the writing fits inside the local rules is more so. First, all else equal, usage is supposed to follow the original edits. This is mostly to prevent whiplash back-and-forth between, say, North American English and British English, but you can make a pretty strong case this is something parallel. So, you are on pretty solid ground here.

Next, articles with a strong connection to someplace or something use the vocabulary proper to it. If you are writing about passenger car tires made for the US domestic market in South Carolina, you don't spell it tyres. So, you are also on fairly firm ground wanting Viet subjects to use Vietnamese terms....but you have to enforce it edit by edit, and writer by writer. No one is gonna ban an entire country from participation, tempting as that often is.

Finally, you have to take into account that this is an English-language operation, and, "Annam" predates French colonialism, and was a perfectly reasonable exonym even for what had been Champa. Reading malice into that isn't helpful, it makes you sound like you are looking for a fight regardless. Anmccaff (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly is this happening at? Can anyone provide diffs please? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

user Dadarson

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

---

Dadarson (talk · contribs) is in a bad mood. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment:--Well, it's time for some music to refresh his mind.He's really in a bad mood.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Just watched Fist Fight and am a big fan of Charlie Day. So long b**ches. For uncensored, unfiltered truth talk to me directly. (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Went from a new user to considering us the worst organization in the history of the world in 7 hours. Is that a new record? --Golbez (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

oh and Dadarson: We don't delete accounts. you're welcome to stop using it, though. --Golbez (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It's okay, I helped him escape the evil empire. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Mass distribution of user block templates

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

---

Could someone have a look at edits by 83.24.95.61 (talk · contribs)? Always looks suspicious when a new account goes on a binge like this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for blocking them, Bbb23. Looks like a Polish user targeting IPs from the US Congress. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Chernobog95

Chernobog95 has repeatedly been spamming links, whether copyrighted, unreliable, or not on several pages, most notably North Korea and weapons of mass destruction and Hwasong-14. He has attacked a number of users a number of times before and during his initial block, claiming that his edits and attacks on users are "justified". He refuses to take responsibility for the trouble he has caused and instead continues argue with the said users. --SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It evident by your and others reactions that criticism is considered an attack by your standards and others who can't handle it while also my block under reason of "unsourced or poorly sourced material" which is absolute fallacy as is your claim that are unreliable and contradictory. If 38 North is not reliable then David Wright who made 6700km estimate is not reliable nor John Schilling who made 8000km estimate who was interviewed/cited in Yonhap News article used on Hwasong-14 page and you removed source to his article and his revised estimate of range for the missile while also continuing to force that 6700km estimate which David Wright later on in John Schilling article acknowledged that he did not take into account Earth's rotation and that missile would go farther when fired towards eastern direction which that article was removed containing both individuals who's estimates are used on Hwasong-14 article. I have repeated this multiple times and this has been ignored. John Schilling articles for 38 North are used on Hwasong-10, Hwasong-12, KN-08 and others while also on North Korea WMD page prior to me adding another source from 38 North. David Wright, John Schilling, Jeffrey Lewis and others have wrote for 38 North. You just couple hours ago removed Jeffrey Lewis tweet in which he shared estimate. Article written by Lewis is sourced on KN-08 and Korean People's Army Strategic Force. I have said probably multiple times, do you research. You did not even bother to look around on wikipedia as evident by your labeling these people and the site as unreliable sources thus don't try bullshit yourself out of this mess you and others have started with your claims fueled by ignorance. Chernobog95 (talk) 20:41 13 July 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope that Chernobog can find a way to work with other editors, because I think their knowledge would be useful on these difficult articles. But I'm not hopeful. Also see User talk:Andy Dingley#User:Chernobog95 Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there's a discussion currently ongoing at User talk:Andy Dingley - because if this, I'd like to hold off on considering action at this time unless disruption is blatant and continues. What URLs is this user adding that is unambiguous spam? Can anyone provide diffs as well as the reference? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Unjustified threats by NeilN and DrFleischman

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

---

Two months ago, I was trying to change a violation of two rules on the Richard B. Spencer article calling him a white supremacist. One was a violation of WP:YESPOV and the other was WP:LIBEL. I pressed on the WP:YESPOV rule until no one could defend it. While I was doing that, I also made a separate subsection accusing the opening sentence of being libelous (while explicitly preventing any misinterpretations of my accusation as a legal threat) and pointing out that it was Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material as soon as it had been identified. I said TWO THINGS about it and suddenly NeilN offered no defense for the claim and just threatened to topic ban me. Out of anger and frustrations, I abandoned the talk page. A few days ago, I came back and noticed that many other editors were complaining about the wording as well, so I suggested to DrFleischman that another RfC be held since the last one had been four months ago and consensus can change. His response was to throw a temper tantrum and threaten to tell admins to sanction me for doing nothing wrong. My only alleged "crime" was suggesting that an article's wording violated a rule that the above editors never considered. Very different from disruptive editing. I need assurance that these editors won't ban me for addressing a previously ignored issue that has a good chance of changing the defamatory lead section. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 18:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Dr. F and I rarely agree on anything. There's no love lost between us. I say that only so that you get the weight of what I'm saying when I say that he's right. Consensus can change, but the policy here is pretty clear. Time to move on. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Diffs, please? I looked through the talk page quickly and I can't find you even editing it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The comments are at Talk:Richard B. Spencer#White Supremacist. However, there still needs to be links to whatever page it was that Dr. Fleischman threw a "temper tantrum and threaten to tell admins to sanction" you. Unless you are referring to an old discussion from 9 May? Even then he doesn't throw a tantrum or threaten you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No tantrums here, and I wouldn't ban you because I'm not an admin, so I can't. However I can report you. Indeed, your editing conduct at Talk:Richard B. Spencer has been textbook WP:IDHT disruption. Your contention that you only said "TWO THINGS" about libel before NeilN threatened you with sanctions is verifiably false. You repeated the "libel" mantra four times before then ([113], [114], [115], [116]). And that doesn't include your endless IDHT beyond the "libel" stuff. You keep bringing up the same recycled arguments over and over again, and each time they are soundly rejected by the consensus. Like I said, pressing for a new RfC on the same content dispute every time the consensus rejects a new variation on an old, already rejected argument is disruptive. Chanting "consensus can change" over and over again doesn't help your cause. When will you drop the stick and move on? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm in the same boat as Niteshift36. I've had more than my share of disagreements with DrFleischman. Yet, I too am compelled to side with DrF on this. The Diaz hasn't seemed to take WP:CONLEVEL into consideration. While there are some on the talk page that agree with TD, I do not see much in the way of cited sources offered to that effect, let alone, enough to warrant an RfC or counter the mountain of existing RS that call Spencer a white supremacist. Sorry if that is beside the point, but it needed to be said. In May, TD was warned by an admin, and told to take it up with WP-Legal if they wanted to continue that discussion [117], yet they have decided that it was wise to WP:REHASH it [118] yesterday, THEN, ask for assurances that they won't be Tbanned for it the next day (today). Seems completely backwards in my view. Lastly, DrF does not seem to be throwing a temper tantrum here, or on the RS talk page, so I'm at a loss as to how that conclusion, among others, was reached. DN (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This is coming up in a lot of articles these days, but after a point, I would just say that Richard Spencer is a big boy and there are mechanisms for him to contact WMF and legal directly if he wants to contest the material, at which point it would be more appropriate then prolonging a content dispute. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Diaz: Keep on using libel as a reason to remove the label and you can be assured I will topic ban you. As I said previously, and what DN reiterated above, contact WMF Legal if you think there's a problem. They'll act accordingly as libel is a legal issue. Pretty simple, really. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks by EEng

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

---

User:EEng has engaged in repeated personal attacks against me having nothing to do with anything. He has suggested that there is something suspicious, sad or pathetic about the mere fact that I attended Harvard Summer School and ridiculed me in a way irrelevant to anything at any opportunity before asking irrelevant questions about my career. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

So you think your record at Wikipedia has been so exemplary that ridicule is out of the question? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I am clearly not arguing any such thing. What I am arguing is that it is only my exits that should be ridiculed, or things related to them. My attendance at Harvard Summer School isn't really a relevant basis for ridicule. Calling me a poseur, based on nothing, isn't really a legitimate thing in Wikipedia. Calling my opinions on heraldry or history or surrealism, gleaned from my exits on those subjects, or even saying that they show that I am an idiot, would be fair enough. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Trust me, no one would ridicule or criticize your exit in any way. In fact, it's being arranged for you even now. EEng 23:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Daniel C. Boyer: You have not provided any diffs to support your allegations. Without any diffs, you are essentially making a personal attack on them. However, from skimming the section above regarding you, this seems to be in retaliation over EEng's proposal. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No, just no. We are deep into boomerang territory here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• For those who are wondering, I'll supply the diff Daniel C. Boyer omitted: I labeled him a poseur (see edit summary at [119]) for inserting himself into List of Harvard alumni based on his attendance at Harvard Summer School (though even for that we'd have to take his word for it). Describing himself as a "Japanese poltician" added to the impression of a surrealist performance piece. EEng 23:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, this is clearly A Most Serious Matter. The only possible solution is an indef block, per WP:BOOMERANG. Partly for not noting the previous ANI thread above when you posted this, more importantly because there's already a large call foor one above, and finally - just because of the lobsters. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• I would suggest this gets closed and the OP blocked indef, Retaliatory threads get no where and neither does mass-promoting yourself and socking. –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate POV template removal by User:Jorm

Please see here. I may be right or wrong in applying the template to that page, but I applied it in good faith, and it deserves at least a discussion -- not a removal with a one-word edit summary. Furthermore, none of the conditions in Template:POV#When_to_remove were met, IMO. I think the tag should be restored at least long enough to to be discussed. If I'm a minority of one in my opinion, then that'll be apparent soon enough and it can be removed then.—Chowbok ☠ 06:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You state that "none of the conditions in Template:POV#When_to_remove were met," but I don't see that you've met the conditions for application of the template — "identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies." Saying that It reads like a press release. You'd never know that she was even a slightly controversial person from reading it. All content thought to show her in a negative light has been quickly weeded out does not identify any specific issues nor does it address how you believe these issues should be handled with reference to our content policies. Rather than run to ANI because someone removed what amounts to a drive-by tag, why not slow down, engage on the talk page and discuss what you think should be added? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you make a point which would be reasonable as a response to my comment on the talk page, but I don't think it's a sufficient reason for removing the tag before it's even discussed. It certainly beats "Nope" as an explanation, though.—Chowbok ☠ 07:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Chowbok, you might as well give up before you start. The likes of Jorm police those articles and you'll never get your way (even if you're right/reasonable). Pain in the bum, I know, but sooner or later they'll become inactive (you just have to live longer!). FWIW, I've used that sort of explanation in a POV tag before now and then discussed on the talk page without any great fuss - but Jorm etc will stonewall. - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

While I believe the tag is premature, I do feel it is worth discussion and have thus engaged on the talk page. These articles read as extremely positive and mention nothing about how polarizing these individuals are. I invite Chowbok and Jorm to work towards a solution. --Tarage (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you point to a single example of Jorm "working towards a solution", ever? He has his cute little phrases like "cool story, bro", "talk to someone who cares", and "because you are an asshole." By cutting and pasting those phrases he avoids having adult conversations with those who disagree with him. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, Guy. He's not a positive to the project, just a niggling presence. - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are dozens of articles where editors express their dissatisfaction by adding POV tags without a plausible justification. It is not enough to express an opinion that the content is POV—what is needed is the precise text that is claimed to be POV, and why, with reliable sources. In an ideal world, Jorm would have spent an hour explaining all that, including paraphrasing the documentation displayed at {{POV}}. However, that is not possible in articles such as Brianna Wu which has "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" at Talk:Brianna Wu. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing on the template page says that the "precise text" needs to be pointed to, actually. It says to add it when "you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article" and that you point to specific policies that the page violates. I agree I didn't go into as much detail as I probably should have, but the template is pretty clearly meant to signify the start of a discussion. And again, if people disagree with me, the thing to do is to discuss it--not simply remove the template, especially on a 1RR page.—Chowbok ☠ 07:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• The article in question is one of a series of contentious pages (WP:ARBGG) where each comma is fought over. In a case like that, it is unacceptable for someone unhappy that the article does not express their POV to put a shame tag at the top. You added the tag in good faith. Please accept that it was removed in good faith. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• But was it? Jorm is as biassed as they come at articles such as this and he knows how to lawyer. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Given Wu is under GG sanctions, it is one thing if an IP/SPA came along and dropped the POV tag, or if an editor that had been tussling with others on that page came along and did the same. Jorn or any other admin would be in the rights to quickly remove it without discussion. But when an experienced editor, apparently uninvolved editor (either on that page or in the topic area) as Chowbok appears to be comes by and tags POV, there better be a good reason to remove it, and a single curt word is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am also an experienced editor who is completely uninvolved with Wu or gamergate. I made a good-faith conclusion that the requirements for adding the POV template have been satisfied and indeed, that there is a POV problem that should be discussed. I re-added the tag and was reverted. So, ignoring the content dispute (ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes), we have a behavioral problem, which is multiple editors refusing to follow Template:POV#When to remove. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any post on the article talk page from you explaining what specific, actionable changes you believe need to be made to the article to make it NPOV. You aren't following Template:POV#When to use. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. If you're pointing to your line about the "moon rocks" thing, you don't appear to be arguing that it's an NPOV issue; indeed, I don't see how it's an NPOV issue either way to include or not include a throwaway line about a single tweet she made. It appears to be a question of what merits inclusion in a brief biography, and that's a matter for editorial consensus to decide. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• If you don't see any post on the article talk page that you think explains specific, actionable changes that need to be made, the proper thing to do is to ask for an explanation, not to remove the POV tag during an active and ongoing discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This strikes me as a disagreement over content and consensus. I don't know whether an informal poll on the talk page is sufficient, or whether we should go full RfC, but I think finding out whether there's broad agreement or not would be useful. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not a disagreement over content and consensus. If it was it would be rejected at ANI and the participants told to take it to the article talk page. This is a user behavior problem. To be specific, multiple editors have removed a valid POV tag in direct violation of policy instead of following policy and discussing the POV concerns on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

While I understand your argument, I will have to respectfully disagree. This strikes me as another facet of WP:BRD. Two editors making the same edit once strikes me as thin gruel. But à chacun son goût. Dumuzid (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the walled garden that any page related to GG has become (and now appearing in other areas), and why I've kept out of it as much as possible since. Just as there was at ArbCom, there have been groups of editors circling wagons around these topics that do not want the POV to be challenged, and while we have to be vigilante in the area against IP/SPA that want to disparage living persons, dismissal of concerns of previously-uninvolved, experienced editors like this is troubling and what ArbCom had warned about, even if it is over the exact specifics of when one can add or remove the POV tag. This is just a slight offence, nowhere near the trouble to go to the hassle of an AE report when a trout will do, but these are signs of the larger problem here. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, regarding your claim that "I don't see any post on the article talk page from you explaining what specific, actionable changes you believe need to be made to the article to make it NPOV." two editors have already done that. Direct quotes:

"I realize this article is a target for trolls, but it is clearly overcompensating in the other direction. It reads like a press release. You'd never know that she was even a slightly controversial person from reading it. All content thought to show her in a negative light has been quickly weeded out."

"Agree. This article has no negatives at all. Sadly, it appears all three of the articles relating to this have not a single point of criticism in them. I'd go and hunt down some reliable sources myself but I don't have the time to do that right now. Can we agree there is a bias problem though?"

Regarding your claim that "You aren't following Template:POV#When to use. (The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.)", I am not the editor who added the tag. The editor who added the tag did discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and it is crystal clear what he believes the NPOV violation is. Please don't accuse me of not following policy when I have followed policy to the letter.

A POV tag was added. The editor adding it followed the rules and started a discussion explaining what he thinks there is a POV problem. Removing the tag instead of discussing his concerns with him is against policy, and those who have violated the policy should be warned, and if they persist, blocked. Note that this is a behavioral problem that has nothing to do with whether the editor who added the tag is right or wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"No negatives" is neither specific nor policy-based. There is no policy that says we have to include "negatives" for their own sake, and "negatives" is impossibly overbroad and vague. There is nothing actionable about saying "there are no negatives." An actionable NPOV argument would be, "Specific issue A is not covered in a balanced way and here are reliable sources X, Y and Z which present a viewpoint that isn't represented in the article." That would be a reasonable starting point for a policy-based discussion on what should be included in this biography. "This article doesn't say anything mean about her" is not.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"It reads like a press release. You'd never know that she was even a slightly controversial person from reading it. All content thought to show her in a negative light has been quickly weeded out." is specific and policy-based. The policy is WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What is "specific" about it? It doesn't identify anything that the user believes needs to be added from reliable sources because it cites no sources. Simply declaring that something is so is unhelpful - it creates no grounds for reasoned discussion or consensus-building. Take the time to find sources first - is that so difficult? If there aren't sources to be found, then the question answers itself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I will leave it to the administrators to deal with your misinterpretation of our rules about when to remove a POV tag, should you be foolish enough to act of those beliefs. I am done responding to you. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no intention of removing it at this point; of course, the NPOV tag is not designed as a permanent scarlet letter and if there isn't a consensus to make any changes, it will naturally be removed at the point the discussion dies or is concluded. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User making threats at WP:SPI

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

---

Probably needs a speedy block, at the very least, per this edit and multiple reverts. Note the threat in the edit summary. Thanks. Jusdafax 07:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Indeffed by admin User:Widr - this is a multiple sock user, suggest the sock master be banned, and the threat possibly reported appropriately. Jusdafax 08:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, obvious sock puppet. This looks to be resolved. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Abuse of administrator privileges by Widr

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

---

This user not only deleted my fresh account without providing any reason as to why, but deleted all created pages which included some articles ready for creation, this user then blocked the IP from editing (despite neither the IP or account having made any vandalising edits), then @Widr: didn't even give the reason for the blocking of both editing and account creation (the latter being permanent as far as I know), this user admitted on his talk page that he wishes to block people from ever creating accounts on Wikimedia ever again and had a whole echo talk with another user with similar views, these WP:BADFAITH edits scare people away from Wikipedia that simply want to improve articles. I assume that I want banned for my name or something as all I did was explain that as a mobile user I dislike it when I get reverted for making edits in 2 turns that desktop users can do in one edit, apparently complaining about Wikipedia's technical limitations gets you attacked by the current bourgeoisie of this site. I request that that user puts the correct template on the talk pages, compare this to other users with similar editing privileges who usually request a name change, the same for corporate accounts this user just IMMEDIATELY bans any "ad" account, others at least allow them to change their names, Widr shows no tolerance or WP:GOODFAITH in any case and hasn't earned his privileges. --113.23.55.110 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Fivestarfoam was as blatant advertising+COI as it can get. If this is the worst Widr is doing, I think we should give him a barnstar with an Oak Leaf for it. And one for me too because I do the same self thing - I have zero tolerance for such deliberate abuse of Wikipedia. AGF doesn't come into it. Are you admitting to block evasion, 113.23.55.110 perchance?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Although Widr's blocks seem to be okay about 99% of the time, I've not been happy with the other 1%, including blocking all of my local public library for a couple of years until I got it overturned at ANI. Unless there's some application of WP:BEANS, I don't know why Person guy is blocked - the account has no contributions, deleted or otherwise. If it's a checkuser block, it should be annotated as such. I'll AGF there's an explanation for all this, but I can't see it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That one is ultimately no mystery: Special:Log/Thatinternettroll. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor creating articles with no content

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

---

User:Hatamtayy (talk) has recently (in the past few minutes) created a number of articles containing only links to off wiki documents. Most of these have been deleted via speedy-delete no-content tags, but at the time of my writing this he may be continuing. Requesting action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked, closing. Hayman30 (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hayman30: @SamHolt6: Unclosing. Not so fast. RickinBaltimore has blocked indefinitely. I would argue that this is overly harsh. Hatamtayy was building a draft article at Draft:Ardalan Sameti, and was creating these "no content" article as a means to link to Sameti's publications. Clearly this was the wrong way to do this, and I had posted a note on Hatamtayy's talk page referring them to Help:Citing sources. I suspect this new user just didn't understand the process. A temporary block to bring their attention to the problem would be appropriate, but not an indefinite block. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Reping @Hayman30: @SamHolt6:. FYI, pings only go through if there is a a new comment with a new signature. They don't work when you edit a previous comment. TimothyJosephWood 14:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll switch the block to 31 hours. The issue to be was the user clearly ignored a warning to stop on their talk page and kept creating articles RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you have a good point that rather than an indef, it might be better to give a short-term block and see if the user is able to follow Wikipedia guidelines.

Is it possible that the draft article is autobiographical? The image on Hatamtayy is the same image in Draft:Ardalan Sameti.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Block switched, and user has posted an unblock request. I of course would be willing to roll back the block, should they understand why they were blocked and what caused the issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like the draft was deleted G11 by User:Maile66 at basically the exact moment I AfC declined, meaning I effectively recreated it. Not totally sure that it's G11, given that it's basically just a bibliography, but... feel free do discuss among yourselves. TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY was probably intended for this, U5 all the way. — fortunavelut luna 14:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the article is autobiographical. The user started the draft on their user page before moving it to a draft article. I think the image is just a remnant of not having completely emptied their user page after starting the draft. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Odd thing, is that it isn't really deleted. My log says I deleted it, but User:Hatamtayy/sandbox still exists. Maybe we cancelled each other out. Whatever, I'm fine with it not being deleted, since this has now being questioned as a bit hasty. — Maile (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If someone is editing the page when it is moved or deleted, it occasionally tells you it's gone in an edit-conflict-style notice. But more often then not it treats it as a page creation. It's happened to me twice this morning alone. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we can be done with this thread for now. The user is temp blocked, and is no doubt on several watchlists at this point, so any further misdeeds can be managed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Please review Light2021's behaviour at AfD

Last year we had this discussion at AN/I. Please review that discussion, and then consider the same user's behaviour towards Cunard at this AfD. Personally, I think Light2021 is in need of further support and direction from our admin corps; your mileage may vary.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I can only applaud your delicacy of phrasing, S Marshall  ;) — fortunavelut luna 17:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Incivility and abuse by Cassianto

Cassianto (talk · contribs) continues to abuse other editors in edit summaries and Talk page comments. Examples are "You really are a moron, aren't you"; "Do not edit war you idiot"; almost the entirety of their contributions to Talk:Harry Lauder#RfC on infobox, including "Go away, and try to be an adult when taking part in adult conversations", "Look at your answer and compare it to my question, you fool ...", "Please try and engage your brain when responding to comments", "Kindly stick your patronising comments where the sun doesn't shine", "I can only assume you are doing what you do best: trolling", "Personally, I couldn't give a fuck toss about your !vote and only persisted in getting an answer from you so others didn't think you were foolish. When you have as many FAs as I do, young boy ...". This is not new behavior from this editor, nor the first time it has been brought to their attention, the most recent attempt at discussion being just yesterday. General Ization ^Talk 17:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Then don't edit war. It's a little hard to weed through, but it's there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJBers (talk • contribs) 18:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I meant to sign it. *Sigh* —JJB^ers 19:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Pardon? This is not about me (and I didn't edit Ariana Grande), but about the behavior of the named editor, even if when reverting other bad behavior. General Ization ^Talk 18:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

First, a warning, at 17:49 (despite WP:DTTR, by the way), and then this, literally three minutes later. What's the matter, did you have a change of heart? Forgot yourself in the frenzy of utter excitement to think that you were creating yet another warning to someone rather than doing some good somewhere (yes, I've checked your contributions, like you have me). Re the four day-old thread at Harry Lauder, did you see my adjustments to the "offending" text? I think someone may enjoy the drama a bit too much. Cassianto^Talk 18:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Although I could probably rest my case based in part on your reply here: WP:DTTR is a suggestion; in your case, your failure to follow the minimum standards expected of editors means that you should be afforded the minimum deference to your longevity here. And yes, I saw your "adjustments", and even took care to reflect them using strike-out above; the point being not the words as they exist on the page now, but as you originally typed them, and your attitude generally toward other editors. General Ization ^Talk 18:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And as previously noted, I was well aware you have been counseled about this behavior (and blocked for it) in the past, and that it was discussed with you only yesterday, so when you simply removed the warning I left for you with a ridiculous comment I saw no reason to delay a report here. General Ization ^Talk 18:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, bless. Tell me, how would you have liked me to have responded to your patronising templating? Award you a kitten? Give you a foot massage? Buy you an all expenses paid trip to Canvey Island? Let's get one thing straight; I don't conceal my contempt for "other editors", as you generously call them, who follow me about in order to poke me into fights and cause havoc where havoc needent be caused. Secondly, and perhaps more worryingly, because I reverted your patronising tag with a jocular comment, rather than my usual expletive, which I've somewhat become known for, you decide to pull on your running shoes and hot foot it to ANI? Are you sure you don't enjoy the drama? C'mon, we're all friends here, don't be shy... ;) Cassianto^Talk 18:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't need to cite WP:BATTLEGROUND for anyone else's benefit. General Ization ^Talk 18:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I know of very few experienced editors with such a consistent battleground mind-set. Unable to set aside the snark/sarcasm/combativeness even when defending themselves against an ANI complaint. Wikipedia should not bear the brunt of serious anger issues. Somebody make a proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I propose to go and do something else while I let the peanut gallery argue amongst themselves. Cassianto^Talk 18:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community. It's not a utopia, but users are expected to meet certain standards of decorum and civility toward each other. The comment just above and aforementioned edit summaries suggest that Cassianto is either unable or unwilling to meet those standards. It's quickly nearing the point where, for the betterment of the community, Cassianto may need to be excluded from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Cassianto has a long history of rudeness. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 18:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Why don't we do one of those civility restrictions, where if you break it, you get blocked for a tiny bit? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on their block log, it would be more than a tiny bit. They were blocked in January for one month for personal attacks or harassment. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I see. Then 5 months or so? And then make the civility restriction appealable in more than the standard time—maybe a year? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree upon 5 months, mostly due to their...not so great block log. —JJB^ers 19:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Cassianto, seriously, you of all people should know better than to engage in juvenile name-calling in edit summaries. It doesn't matter if the person you are engaged with is actually an idiot or is stupid, you just can't go around dropping that shit in edit summaries. You're better than that. You need to be bigger than that. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Propose three month block

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

---

The obvious place to go here would seem to be the three month block that didn't stick last time, and which followed basically a month after a month long block for incivility. This has become a monthly or bi-weekly tradition. Cass doesn't need it explained to them in crushing detail what it means to just not be mean to people, or to be reminded that they are expected to be civil, which is what a civility restriction boils down to. And we don't need a user around where you can mark your calendar according to the next expected ANI. If we're here again in a few months, escalate from there, and if that doesn't solve the problem then it's probably time to consider an indef so we can stop doing exactly this. This doesn't really need an extended discussion. If anyone is unfamiliar, interested and has a few hours to kill, you're welcome to dig through literally years of ANI threads about the same user and the same issue. That's quite enough I think. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Just get it over with before this inevitably turns into a 50 page thread. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support 5 months As stated, the three month block didn't work, so 5 months. Mostly stated above this section. —JJB^ers 19:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers, the three month block was imposed but was removed the same day after another god awful ANI thread. TimothyJosephWood 19:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that, I'll change it to supporting a three month block. —JJB^ers 19:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It's the fecking internet, a bit of rough language does not merit a block. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support as the one who brought the question here (only this time, and only one of many). General Ization ^Talk 19:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Although I'm reluctant because of the content creation, this seems to be the best thing. The content creation hasn't been going on for a while either, so it wouldn't be too bad for the encyclopedia. In addition, IIRC, they helped scare away Coffee, and probably more users. Thus, it would be beneficial for this user to be blocked. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, Please feel free to look in on this and this, just two re-writes I'm conducting on two very important people. Cassianto^Talk 20:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I am gong to call complete fucking bollocks on the claim that "they helped scare away Coffee". That sort of downright lie has no place in discussions like this. Coffee had problems that's were nothing to do with Cassianto. - SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the strike. – SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Darkness Shines. Becoming short tempered with edit warriors who do not heed warnings may not appease the peanut gallery, but it happens to those who spend their time building an encyclopaedia. – SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• As that's the second reference to "peanut gallery", the first being from Cassianto, I'm curious. What exactly is the definition of this "peanut gallery"? Is it something like "ignorant masses"? That would be a very hard case to make given the collective experience among supporters of this proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Peanut gallery was the 1950s era audience of children who attended the television taping of each Howdy Doody Show. — Maile (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A case of .... If wiki gives you peanuts, make a gallery?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hat discussion distracting from the matter at hand — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Ization (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You know, it's funny you should mention that correlation (use of the fairly obscure term "peanut gallery"). Is this interesting to anyone else? General Ization Talk 19:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Cassianto and I have worked together to raise the standard of many articles. What's your point. It certainly isn't "interesting" to anyone intent on building content, rather than infesting the drama the boards. (And no, despite your desperate claim, there is nothing obscure about the term peanut gallery) – SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Mandruss, who the hell do you think you are? You come here shouting for a punitive block whilst at the same time, accusing SchroCat and I of being one and the same. Open up an SPI if you think you're brace enough. CassiantoTalk 20:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I think your unfounded accusation is directed at the wrong editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC) And there another: a penchant for ignoring WP:AGF and suggesting that other, disagreeing editors are only interested in drama. Not really suggesting anything, just find it interesting that your editing patterns, thought patterns and modes of expression have become so similar. But I'm sure it's from your long association improving the encyclopedia. General Ization Talk 20:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC) It's a good thing I have my AGF hat on, because otherwise it would be easy to take "just find it interesting that your editing patterns, thought patterns and modes of expression have become so similar" as suggestive of a socking accusation. There are enough senior editors, including a number of admins, who have met both me and Cassianto. I suggest you curtail that line of thought, if indeed it was there. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC) You know, User:General Ization, it's not funny at all that you should use a tool like that here in this discussion. That practically amounts to stalking in my book and I hope you get a boomerang bad-faith block as a result. And I've only logged out because I don't want to be the subject of any of your snooping or insinuations. 109.144.220.64 (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC) It's hardly "snooping" to do some minor investigating, using an endorsed tool, when someone who contributes to a discussion here uses very similar language and reflects very similar attitudes to the editor who is the subject of a discussion of their violations of policy. General Ization Talk 20:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Careful General Ization, you're getting close to the next thread being about you. – SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I see. I said I found it interesting; I still do. If you would like to see me blocked for that, start another thread here, please. General Ization Talk 20:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Close to the truth, but not quite all of it. Saying that you "just find it interesting that your editing patterns, thought patterns and modes of expression have become so similar" is too close to a suggestion of socking for comfort. – SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC) You can't have it both ways. If you think that the similarities and what I think about them are not appropriate to discuss here, please stop discussing them. General Ization Talk 20:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC) ? I'm not trying to have anything two ways. As an administrator you should know that if you want to make entirely false snide accusations against someone who will pull you up on it, it's probably best to let the matter slip away, not try and continue the bluster and bullshit. Can I suggest you step away and stop discussing this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC) If you think these two editors are one and the same, either put your money where your mouth is at SPI or end this type of commenting. Unless the aim is to infer that there's socking going on in addition to the matter you brought to ANI. We hope (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I think that was already answered above, in the form of an explicit denial from one of the parties. I'm not the one who is perpetuating this particular line of discussion. General Ization Talk 20:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Big accusations (even put snidely) need big evidence. Next time hold your tongue until you know what you're talking about. – SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC) You know what? You have no standing to tell me to "hold my tongue" about anything. Either you let this particular aspect of the discussion die out of its own accord, or you'll find me right here ready to respond to any accusations of improper conduct on my part. But do not tell me, in effect, to "shut up". You do not have that authority. General Ization Talk 21:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC) General Ization Talk 21:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC) You keep shooting, cowboy, particularly as I have not told you t shut up, just to get evidence before you shoot your mouth off next time. It's not me that's making unfounded uncivil accusations about others with absolutely no proof whatsoever. If you don't think it's worth lowering your head below the parapet to avoid dramah, then people will read into your stance accordingly. – SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Darkness Shines & SchroCat- Fan4life was acting like a child so got spoken to like one, I seen no valid reason to block, I propose this gets speedy closed. –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not only about Cassianto's comments to Fan4life, nor was the list of examples at the top of this thread exhaustive by any means; it reflected examples based only on a cursory of their edits in the past four days. The editor does not limit their abuse to edit warriors, nor to any particular class of editors except those who make the mistake of disagreeing with them. General Ization ^Talk 20:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the preceding, and add: Assuming for the sake of discussion that this Fan4life was in fact "acting like a child", is that how you speak to children? I hope not. Might warrant an IBAN between you and children. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why don't the pair of you stop trying to bludgeon other editors? You are both coming across as very hostile. Cassianto^Talk 20:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Point taken as to bludgeon. I've said more than my share here and plan to withdraw at this point unless someone addresses my comments directly. As to hostile, I plead guilty to being highly hostile to chronic incivility. I am not hostile to any individual. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Fairly mild response to significant provocation. Folks need to stop poking the bear. Scr★pIron^IV 20:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction on Cassianto, who works very hard to add excellent sourced content. Yes, he should try not to be rude, but I don't see that as any big deal.Smeat75 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - civility is not optional. Anyone can be a little uncivil on occasion when tempers run high, but when it becomes a regular thing, it is not something to dismiss with a shrug and a suggestion that anyone who is targeted should grow a thicker skin. --bonadea contributions talk 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. People are called worse than moron in traffic, yet they don't flag down the nearest policeman over it and ask the offender be booked for it. We hope (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• You are free to submit WP:CIVIL to MfD. It's a Wikipedia policy, and its nutshell begins with : "Participate in a respectful and considerate way." It is not a suggestion for optional self-growth. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Didn't ask-not interested. We hope (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That speaks volumes, thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And you're totally welcome. We hope (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor and repeatedly being uncivil to other users does not foster a collaborative environment. --Imminent77 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. or in the alternative, get rid of WP:NPA, because there is no point in having a policy that is not enforced against a user with this record of incivility. As Mandruss points out, the project should not bear the brunt of a user with anger issues. Three months is lenient when their long block record, almost all for incivility, is taken into account. I'd be happy with much longer or indefinite. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose ultimately we're here to write an encyclopedia. Cassianto does a lot of that. The reverts were correct though the language unnecessary. The language was explosive rather than targeted/mean. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Darkness; surely this is less than what the Encyclopaedia expects? — fortunavelut luna 20:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - who else is going to write these articles? Is Cassianto the new Eric Corbett? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you've never seen us together, have you? Although Eric is a lot more intelligent than I am. Maybe Madruss General Ization will think that SchroCat and I are also Eric? Cassianto^Talk 21:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Kindly stop confusing me with General Ization. I corrected that error 26 minutes ago. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss, I've kindly stopped. My mistake. Sorry. Cassianto^Talk 20:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have it on good authority that, unlike the saintly Father Jackum, Cassianto doesn't have a brick. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Blatant and repeated incivility of this type drives away decent users. I don't believe I have encountered this editor previously. Looking at the diffs, I don't care how much content this editor provides if it's at the expense of others who merely disagree with the editor. Opposers seem to be OK with a Wild West mentality on this project, but their rationales are unconvincing. What I see is a classic internet bully who needs sanctioning. How many other content providers has this editor discouraged? Three months? I'd be OK with a year. Jusdafax 20:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I met Cassianto and SchroCat in a pub not too long ago. They said to everyone else that I liked Donald Trump and I was interested in improving articles about him. I told them to fuck off. We all laughed (as I knew they were taking the piss). It's called differences in culture - you cannot give offence, you can only receive it. For a similar, earlier, discussion, see User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 41#Cassianto (you'll need to unhat it). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, another one who complains about "rudeness" by being rude about others. You couldn't make it up! Cassianto^Talk 20:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And I'd say your snark proves my case. You don't get it, and proudly don't care, believing yourself immune from criticism. Jusdafax 20:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

My snark? I refer you to your contradictory "Wild West" comment above. Also, I require a diff for evidence that I consider myself "immune from criticism". How do you know what I believe? Cassianto^Talk 20:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

One thing, from the About page: "Wikipedia is written collaboratively". If you can't be civil, and collaborate with other users, what's the point. —JJB^ers 21:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between users collaborating and users causing trouble. I have no time for trouble makers, but I have all the time in the world for collaborators. I'm here to write featured articles and write things which I hope people find interesting. Sure, I've tailed off slightly, but some of that has been a result of sitting around waiting for books (which I've bought for the benefit of Wikipedia) so I can complete Sandbox1, and the other, in Sandbox2, I'm waiting for a malicious RfC to finish before I carry on with it. The outcome, obviously, will decide on whether I do, or not. I'm not here to make friends; I'm not here to be nice to people who disrupt the project and who spoil my writing enjoyment. I'm here to be nice to people who collaborate, treat me the same as they themselves would want to be treated, and use common sense in adverse situations, rather than spout MoS shite at me, tag me on my talk page, drag me to drama boards, and then enforce make-believe policies on me that would, in everyday life, more than likely, be otherwise ignored. Some people here seem to forget what we are actually here for. We are here to create content. This is not a social media platform or a Tinder-style hook up site. It's an encyclopaedia where people write for the benefit of readers. The bottom line is, if someone behaves like a dick, then the chances are, they probably are one. If they are reasonable, then likewise, they probably are. It's not rocket science. But as has been demonstrated here tonight, if you do get on with someone "collaboratively", like I do with SchroCat, Ritchie, Martin, or We hope, then you get accused of being socks. Like I've said elsewhere, you can't make this up! . Cassianto^Talk 21:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

How do you feel about my suggestion to alter the civility policy to acknowledge a de facto exception for people such as yourself, those who are perceived as having earned the right not to be civil? That seems to be your position, even if not explicitly stated. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Like Figureofnine said above, just because of the fact that you write content doesn't mean you get a get out of jail pass for incivility. —JJB^ers 22:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but could either of you point to the part in my comment above where I've said that because I "write content doesn't mean [I] get a get out of jail pass for incivility" and where I've "perceived as having earned the right not to be civil"? There seems to be a lot of poetic licence being used tonight without much evidence. But still, don't let the truth get in the way of sensationalism Cassianto^Talk 22:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I said That seems to be your position, even if not explicitly stated. Am I mistaken? And how do you feel about my suggestion concerning NPA policy, to explicitly carve out an exemption for people perceived as being too valuable to sanction for civility violations? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

But that's not quite my point. I've seen NPA actually become weaker and weaker over the years. The community abolished the civility noticeboard, WQA, in the view that civility is not important enough to necessitate a separate board. I am just acknowledging reality and suggest that perhaps we need to formally acknowledge the practice of permitting incivility from certain users. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks to the good General for stepping in and all, but do we get to hear from User:Fan4Life about their actual view of this unsavoury language? And what about such encyclopedia stalwarts as User:Sdfakjdfjklklasdf, etc.?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The amount of content added to the encyclopedia does not preclude him from criticism, but it does grant him a degree of influence. Offering him clemency would be an adequate outcome for this situation. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I didn't start this because I thought it would get overwhelming support, but because I'd just rather get the thing over with. Not surprised to see plenty of "CIVIL doesn't apply to certain users" arguments. See you all in three to six weeks when we all get to make the same arguments again. TimothyJosephWood 21:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Here we are again. Cassianto is back from another rage quit, and engaging in the usual superior, uncivil behavior we always see from him. A three month block is, if anything, too lenient; it's clear he sees no reason to change, and has no intention of doing so. But at least we can be spared his uncivil behavior for a time. I don't give a hoot how much content he contributes; it's no excuse for the kind of behavior he demonstrates on a regular basis. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remeniscent of the kind of bile spouted over at Wikipediocracy. Welcome on over! ;) Cassianto^Talk 22:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Long overdue. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support I think several editors have hit the nail on the head here. We have a civility policy that is supposed to apply to everyone- even content contributors. The place didn't fall apart last time when Cassianto was blocked and during his retirement, and he is wasting more time with these monthly ANI threads regardless of his contributions. I don't mind the odd 'fuck off' but the diffs below demonstrate that his incivility extends far further than that.

• "I'm afraid I'm about to end your sexual arousal by withdrawing from the edit war; please, carry on at your lesuire, the article is shit and not worth defending"
• "I don't know if you're meaning to be an insufferable little prick, or if you're just drunk or on drugs. Whatever it is, I suggest you go and have a lay down somewhere and decide which one it is."
• "Is it just a socialistic crusade that you consider yourself to be the Führer of?"
• "Personally, I couldn't give a fuck about your !vote and only persisted in getting an answer so others didn't think you were foolish. Unfortunately, you've lived up to that now. As I've said previously, you're views here are worth nothing and are as flawed as one-legged arse kicking competion."
• "You go ahead and bastardise all their hard work. I see you're from California; tell me, why is it always the Americans who seem to be even more obsessed over Infoboxes than anyone else"
• "What a lot of delusional bullshit."

I think the diffs really say it all. This goes beyond the odd 'fuck off'. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose block, but I'd support a ban from infobox discussions and -reverts for three months. I'd be happier without this, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That issue isn't under discussion here. We hope (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no time to read this whole mess, but it seems that all quoted diffs come from infobox arguments. Without them, we might have more tranquility, no? (unwatching) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

ARBcom is the answer to that issue so both sides are represented. We hope (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose with a reminder to Cassianto that his level of civility is stooping to that of a certain world figure elected in November 2016.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Lol, that's right, I'm also a sock of Donald Trump. Although I do take offence at the hair! Cassianto^Talk 22:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support three months is pretty long, but it's not as if Cassianto doesn't know about the civility requirements. I have no desire to minimize the significance of his content creation skills, but at some point he has used up the goodwill earned by those content skills. Lepricavark (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support I'd more warmly support a two-month block in light of the recent one-month block, but the encyclopedia is endangered by its double standard governing "content creators" (read: old-timers) and the rest of us peons. It's impossible to gauge how many potentially-constructive editors are driven off by incivility, and "it's the Internet" is a weak argument. Miniapolis 23:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block, suggest infobox topic ban - As mentioned by Gerda Arendt, pretty much all of the diffs about incivility come from infobox discussions. I would oppose a block because of the content creation by this user. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block on a vested contributor. Suggest BOOMERANG on OP. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on what policy? General Ization ^Talk 23:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear IP who popped out of nowhere, see Wikipedia:No vested contributors and [120]. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support -- Enjoy! Cassianto^Talk 23:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. We're building an encyclopedia, Cassianto does a lot of that. Who proposes to take on his workload if he is blocked?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is no deadline, so there can be no "workload" for any editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support It doesn't matter if a contributor does lots of work. If you can't work with them, they are not working as a cooperating contributor. Please do not allow a double standard for people who edit frequently. --Tarage (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't Cassianto's support of his own block basically a self requested block? jcc (tea and biscuits) 00:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Cassianto has been blocked for 62 days as a result of a self-block request. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Civility restriction

I propose a civility restriction for Cassianto. This restriction would make personal attacks result in a six month block and each civility breach, agreed on by the community, would result in a four month block. This would be appealable in one year, as per the long history of civility breaches. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Good concept but unenforceable. What constitutes a personal attack? How can we get agreement on the definition? Based on the discussion above, some users think it's okay to call another editor an "idiot" repeatedly. Is a personal attack anything that another user appeals to WP:AN[I] for a block about because they have "received offence"? That's so obviously abusable that I don't have to worry about spilling the beans in this comment. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Repeatedly"? Is this another fancy statistic pulled out of the air of makebelieve? Cassianto^Talk 20:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • A personal attack is something that is unanimously (or pretty much) accepted as a personal attack. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    • By who? Someone on behalf of another? With respect, that's utter bullshit. But thanks for your opinion. Cassianto^Talk 22:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not clear on this suggestion. A perusal of the block record indicates he has been here before. His behavior in this discussion is anything but encouraging. Rather than have more drama, a long separation from the project seems most viable. Otherwise we need to revise the civility policy to make it clear that certain editors have a de facto exemption based on length of service, past or present content creation and/or status as an administrator (not applicable here), and that users not so favored need to either take their abuse or get out of the project entirely. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Has he been asked to apologise? If I was really, really offended by his language, could he be asked to apologise to me? Antipodean marsupials, anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Do you mean here, or here? Or perhaps, both? But maybe this kind of rudeness is acceptable for someone offering good intent. Cassianto^Talk 21:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Pah! We'll have none of your clever tricks here, Cassianto! You deserve all you get!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Please open a separate thread if you feel you need to address my very predictable WP:CIVIL issues. Thank you.

• Comment - Just think .... all of this energy spent on this poxy thread .... could be better spent improving actual articles for our readers .... just a thought. –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

*cough* .... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That's very true, Davey. Part of the problem must be that the night shift at Springfield Nuclear Power Plant sometimes gets a bit boring? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I do think something needs to be done, but I don't think this precise proposal is the fix (it's too draconian, for one). Cassianto is the most prevalent abusive longterm editor I know of on Wikipedia, and he has gotten away with it for too long. I think what is in order here is an official final warning that the next serious breach will result in an unappealable three-month block. Unfortunately, this whole thread is tainted by the very poor and unwarranted block that Amortias enacted a while ago for something that was not problematical. But Cassianto's behavior, bullying, and threats do and will have to be dealt with sooner or later. It's hard for ingrained habits to change, but we have had at least one memorable instance a year ago where a longterm editor was taken to task for the nth time here for his bullying behavior, and he agreed to a self-requested block and a stay-away till he calmed down and changed his ways, which, thankfully, he has. Softlavender (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, could you please provide some diffs the for "threats" and "bullying" you wax so lyrical about? Cassianto^Talk 22:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment One of the most frustrating parts of this is Cassianto refusal to take any of this seriously. He is openly mocking the process, unrepentant in his abuse, and even voting for his own block. Why is this behavior allowed when anyone else doing it would be reprimanded? --Tarage (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unenforceable. All the definitions of "personal attack" and "civility" are completely subjective and various editors in the past have displayed vastly differing interpretations. This whole thing is just the Malleus debate all over again, but at the end of the day we've just lost a valuable contributor for three months because as a community we can't deal with mean words. I can't believe how childish we are. We're turning into a university "safe space". Miniapolis is right to point out that we have no way of knowing exactly what the cost of incivility is, but we know exactly the cost of losing an editor like Cassianto for 62 days. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm... Basalisk, (no offense, but) isn't that two months? --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If we're splitting hairs it's actually 2.0369 months. Who cares. It makes no difference to my point. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Basalisk and C.Fred. Unenforceable, and this becomes "minimum sentencing", thus subject to abuse. Not specific to this case, but generally speaking, I think people here and in the real world get offended entirely too easily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Civility sanctions you mean. Has this ever been done before at ANI (limiting any "personal attacks" from an editor with a block as the end result)? Wouldn't this be better dealt with through arbcom?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - as moot. The 62 day block is about twice what the offense merited, in my view; message hopefully has been received. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Emails from blocked sock puppets

Hi, I'm occasionally getting emails from users that I never interacted with, usually pointing me to a discussion or an edit. The account is usually blocked for being a sock puppet. I presume this editor saw some of my other edits/discussions and assumes that I would represent their POV in the matter they are canvassing me into, thus acting as their meat puppet. If this is done to me, presumably it is done to other editors as well. Why at all is there a possibility for a permanently blocked account to send emails ? “WarKosign” 19:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Socks aren't "permanently" blocked, although it may seem to turn out that way in the case of some. In any event, e-mail access is not disabled by default when an account is blocked. If you are being harassed, you'll need to disclose who and the contents of the e-mail. If for some reason the content is private (to you, not to the sender), you can forward the material to an administrator, perhaps the blocking administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Last email I got was from user:AmirSurfLera, this is the content:

Don't you think this is WP:Undue weight? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict&type=revision&diff=790388449&oldid=789898286

Usually it's just 1-2 emails from each such account. Tracking who blocked each email sender is more bothersome than the emails themselves. I can handle a handful of such emails in a year, the problem is that such behavior can be practiced at all while it's so easy to prevent.

As long as the user's page says that it's permanently blocked, what's the purpose of leaving email access ? If the purpose is to be able to appeal, only email access to admins is needed, allowing emailing other editors seems like an invitation for canvassing. “WarKosign” 21:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why should tracking be hard? At the bottom of the e-mail it tells you who the user is.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

All users have the option, under Preferences/EMail Options to uncheck the box "Enable email from other users". Nobody is required to enable emails. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but if a blocked user is blatantly abusing his ability to email others - I'm for disabling it (provided that it's true and ongoing, of course). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss concerns and refusal to properly source blps

I came across Durneydiaz's edits while working on the New Page Patrol. I was concerned that Durneydiaz was repeatedly creating articles on living people which had no references, just external links, such as [121]. There were many examples. I also came across a page on New Page Patrol that was completely blank. There are 337 messages on Durneydiaz's talk page, including mentioning a 2011 ANI and most of the messages are about referencing concerns, and over many years. After taking advice from other members of NPP, I moved the blps with no clear refs (although some had links in an 'external links' section which didn't mention if they were used as sources for the article) to draftspace and sent talk page messages trying to engage Durneydiaz in a discussion and advising not to move the articles back to mainspace until they had inline citations. Instead, Durneydiaz ignored my messages at Talk:Durneydiaz and instead starting editwarring by moving the articles back into mainspace without any references (some external links, exactly as before). I would really just like Durneydiaz to discuss the issues, and start inline citations for blps, especially as Durneydiaz creates many. According to the talk page, these exact issues have been raised with this editor for more than 7 years with no changes. Matías Fissore is a typical example - it wouldn't take long for the creator to format and refernce this properly, but it would be very difficult for anyone else. 21:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn (talk • contribs)

• (Non-administrator comment) The talk page (User talk:Durneydiaz) is filled with CSD-notices. Kleuske (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Try looking for sources for these BLPs. If you find them, add them to the articles and problem solved. If you can't find any then AfD them and let the process take care of the rest. If he starts disrupting that process we'll have to deal with that as the problem arises. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)