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. 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

Template hijacking

A template (not sure which one) has been vandalized to redirect clicks anywhere on certain article pages that use it to a Youtube live feed ([1]). One of the affected articles is Barack Obama. To demonstrate the issue, navigate to that page, then attempt to click on any blue link (or even in the white space of the page, as the exploit actually uses a transparent overlay). General Ization ^Talk 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't seem to reproduce it on mobile ... maybe fixed already? Or just not working on my browser? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not working on your mobile browser. General Ization ^Talk 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't work on my desktop either.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This was fixed; see the VPT thread. {{Excessive citations inline}} had a overlay element added to it. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently fixed now -- either undone by the initiator of the hijacking or corrected by someone else. General Ization ^Talk 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

See my recent contribs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this same exploit before (redirecting clicks, as I recall, to the same webcast). I won't say more because last time it was all revdel'd so as not to give anyone ideas (WP:BEANS). General Ization ^Talk 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Spam blacklisted. SQL^{Query me!} 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed a few templates in my watchlist getting protected the other day; apparently this process needs to be speeded up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

One of these templates had 8 transclusions. Whatever standards are applied, a template like that is probably not going to be automatically protected, and even if it was there'll probably appear an autoconfirmed sock. However feel free to join the discussion at WP:VPR. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've run a purge job on all pages where that was transcluded, so it should be clear now. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Can I take this opportunity to point out to people that if you see reports of template vandalism, "strange vandalism" or similar, then the first thing to check is this newbie template contribs link (it's easy to reconstruct). The edits are almost always immediately obvious. If there's nothing there you can always check recent changes for unregistered contribs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Zzuuzz: template "related changes" for a page usually helps as well e.g.. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Xaosflux and Zzuuzz: At least one of the templates in the "newbie" link above - Template:Conservatism sidebar - is still transcluding vandalism onto pages when logged out; this image was just appearing on Republican Party (United States) instead of the template when viewing the page in incognito mode. I've purged the page and it appears to be gone from there, but the template transcludes onto 128 other pages according to the tool. I'll see if I can find any others. Home Lander (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • • • @Home Lander: I'll have a bot purge them all now. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Thanks Xaosflux; by chance, can you spill the beans on how to do that? Home Lander (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
          •  Done @Home Lander: you can grab the 'what links here' list from the template, then feed that to anything to script either running WP:PURGE or null-edits to the pages. You could even use AWB and just append {{subst:null}} to a list of pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
            • @Xaosflux: Oh lord, you lost me quickly. I have no experience with the AWB or bots (other than the anti-vandal or AIV helpers). I think I'll just leave that to you. Home Lander (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Aww, dang it... I've been meaning to pull a list of our templates with the highest translusion count and make sure that any high risk or highly visible ones are protected. I'll put that back on my to-do list... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

MusikAnimal has done a lot of work to list and protect templates and modules. See the recent User talk:MusikAnimal#List request from Primefac. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! This is exactly what we need to be doing so we can reduce the risk of major template vandalism that would impact many pages. Thanks for letting me know that this is a currently in-progress task; I'll see what I can do to help (if it's needed). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Primefac protected a boat load from a report I gave him (which I agree with, for the record :). I'm not sure how much further we should go without broader support, but anyway I have a script that I can run anytime you need me to. A bot task used solely for reporting is probably a bad idea, per WP:BEANS. I suspect however that at least one of the vandals we're dealing with is running their own queries. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to protect all redirects to such protected templates too? Don't know how worthwhile it'd be, but I remember a while back people were hitting template redirects too. ansh666 04:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We're just talking about redirects, right? Not any pages that reference them? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, like how Template:Info box redirects to Template:Infobox. (Perhaps a bad example, since thankfully the former isn't used at all.) ansh666 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I got'cha. I don't think there's an automated way to do that (or at least easily). Cascading protection only protects subpages of a page, but what you're asking for sounds to be almost the same thing (except... with redirects). You'd have to find each one and do it one-by-one if it can't be done with automation... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, we'll need to stay a step ahead and do this ourselves. I agree that having a bot report these things is not a good idea. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Is diff an attempt for something similar? Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I'm no admin, so I can't comment on the previous, but yes, it looks like the idea is similar. Easy enough to turn into a transparent redirect. See User:Bellezzasolo/sandbox. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Another: Template:Delink question hyphen-minus + user. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Handled by NeilN. The take-home message is that this is not going to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Dilpa kaur

• Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs)

Could an admin take a look at the contribs of this WP:SPA account, especially these diffs here which clearly show that this account is engaged in meat puppetry. —MBL ^Talk 08:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's a disruptive meat puppet. See [2] filed a report just after JosephusOfJerusalem (another SPA) had his report rejected.[3] On report he writes, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[4] Same green font and sentence that JosephusOfJerusalem had applied, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[5]

Few things are clear here, they both are obsessively trying hard to get me blocked/banned, and using same templates/style/words and they are edit warring in tandem. Such deception needs to be dealt with indef block, because these accounts are WP:NOTHERE, all they care about is their disruptive ethnic agenda. Anmolbhat (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat:--Hmm..Some similarity at the AE report but I ain't seeing much meat-puppetryin light of Ammarpad's evidence, the overlap looks to be strong except the hazy overlaps which is not uncommon, given the highly polarised editing atmosphere at your main-space overlaps with Dilpa.You can file a detailed SPI report, including relevant diffs etc.And, Anmol, it's best to comment on content and not on contributors, at article talk-pages.Winged Blades^Godric 08:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@WBG: I don't think it is ripe for SPI but I believe the above report is beyond talkpage comments. Do you think this is also mere happenstance? Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) removed content with claim of MOS violation. Reverted by Raymond3023. See the next edit –Ammarpad (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I ran Interwine but missed the diff.Thanks:)Winged Blades^Godric 09:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Saving a template from the preceding report, working on it when the reported person displays more bad behaviour, as is the case here with Anmolbhat, is not meatpuppetry. Your other diffs [6] are a misrepresentation, sometimes i struggle with making my pre-planned edits on my mobile because it gets frozen and goes haywire and copying from my phone notes and pasting and saving becomes a hassle. This[7] was a temporary notice on my part on the page to underline the issues with the text I was trying to remove, until I could fix the text properly when my phone improved, which I did within 5 minutes[8]. This seems like a detraction from the current AE case against MBlaze Lightning's friend Anmolbhat who has just broken the civility restriction. My guess is that when I by mistake pasted my report on Anmolbhat by mistake in the wrong place and came back to insert it in the right place later, during that time MBlaze Lightning started planning a diversion from the AE case against Anmolbhat. What should be looked into is the long-term tag-teaming between MBlaze Lightning, Anmolbhat, Capitals00, Kautilya and some others. Dilpa kaur (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You can make up whatever you want to but we have already understood that you and other disruptive SPAs are meat puppets, with nothing to do here except edit warring in tandem and pushing your disruptive ethnic agenda. According to you, we should investigate long term editors like Mblaze, Kautilya3, Capitals00 so that your meat puppetry can be justified. You make no sense. Anmolbhat (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment from somebody who has closely watched this go down for the last few weeks but has mostly been a bystander. I have not directly interacted with Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) or JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs) but have noticed their edits and their editing behavior so far has not been typical of a Wikipedia editor and raised some doubts in my mind. There was a RfC at Talk:Kashmir conflict recently and there seemed to be a Wikipedia:Vote stacking on that page. Now this might seem typical of India-Pakistan pages given the different views. But quite a bit of editors participated in that RfC with little or no edits on the actual page. What was even more concerning was the fact that many of these editors had been dormant for quite some time before the RfC, commented on the RfC and went back to their dormant selves. This behavior clubbed with the behavior on recent articles like Kashmiris, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, 1947 Poonch Rebellion, Violence against women during the partition of India is concerning. In these cases editors have been recently created (past 1-2 months) accounts who have very little editing history on Wikipedia and most of it resolves around a limited set (4-5) of India-Pakistan pages and seems to be pushing a certain POV. An editor was recently blocked for a week for violating the 1RR block for their edits which they falsely claimed were copy-right violations. In my opinion, the administrators need to have a closer look at this since there seems to be something more than what meets the eye. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80's uninvolved observer comments are exactly accurate. I couldn't have said it better myself. There is serious tag teaming/meatpuppetry going on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Bishonen I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this and see whether indefinite blocks are warranted. —MBL ^Talk 00:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am happy and satisfied reading Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs)'s explanation of the diffs. I don't see any evidence of meat puppetry. I have in the past been falsely accused of socking by MBL and I would encourage people to take into consideration just how many of these accusations he throws around. --Xinjao (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Why you bothered to come back to Wikipedia 29 days only for supporting such nonsensical "explanation"? You can describe though if they are any sensible. Capitals00 (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• @GeneralizationsAreBad: could you take a look, please? —MBL ^Talk 15:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Filer's tag-teaming and harassment

The filer has been part of several spurious and failed attempts at getting blocked the users he disagrees with. Just last month on here MBlaze Lightning created a report against Dilpa kaur so ridiculous (he could not differentiate between the different IPs of @Dilpa kaur: and @Danish.mehraj26:) that he had to revert himself [9]. He also paarticipated against me and @Danish.mehraj26:/@JosephusOfJerusalem: in a frivolous SPI which ended up confirming our innocence. The question is why is the filer so desperately making multiple attempts to get others blocked (his own block log is hardly one to envy)?

And what was happening in the middle of all of this? Two IPs,[10][11] located in two different [12][13] Indian cities, turn up to frame me and @Owais Khursheed: for meatpuppetry. Both IPs were had knowledge of a user known as @Kautilya3:, which indicates they were old users IP socking to frame me and Owais. The different locations of the IPs suggest collaboration between multiple old users is happening on IP levels, and even worse is happening through the accounts where they are using hook and crook methods to get opposing editors blocked.

Senior editor @Mar4d: is had also complained of this trend of a group of editors close to @Kautilya3: wreaking POV havoc across articles in the India-Pakistan topic area.

MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00, Adamgerber80, D4iNa4 and Kautilya3 have an extensive record of tag teaming and supporting each other on articles, often where they have had minimal or negligible contribution to article content or discussion on the talkpages.

For example the senior editor @NadirAli: observed on Talk:Violence against women during the partition of India that Kautilya3 suddenly arrived on a talkpage discussion for an article he had no contribution to. Even more interestingly, MBlaze Lightning turned up on the same page to do a revert[14] to ensure the page looked the way Kautilya3 wanted [15]. This despite MBlaze Lightning not contributing much to the article either.

Another example is Talk:Annexation_of_Junagadh#MBlaze_Lightning_cuts where Kautilya3 turns up, after a long absence from contributing to the article, to support MBlaze Lightning's POV.

And even more. During extensive discussions on Talk:Kashmir_conflict#KA$HMIR_revert_justifications between me, @NadirAli:, @Kautilya3: and @Mar4d:, MBlaze Lightning is absent. He then suddenly turns up only to agree with Kautilya3 and Capitals00 here Talk:Kashmir_conflict#NadirAli_edits, though again this contribution is no more than a line. Despite having no contribution worth the name to the discussion he then reverts to Kautilya3's preferred version.

And then comes in Adamgerber80, who had no contribution to the discussion, to restore MBlaze Lightning and Kautilya3's preferred version during the edit war [16]. Note his edit summary ad then check how much he has contributed to the discussions on talk.

Just recently, MBlaze Lightning again proved to be part of a tag team. Until now he has had no major contribution to the discussion on Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus except for one vague statement (and no response thereafter when he was questioned) in support of Anmolbhat and Kautilya3's POV [17]. He then did a disruptive revert on the article [18]. Fortunately the edit war has been ended graciously by the admins who have locked the page now so MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat can no longer break WP:NOCON and do disruptive reverts.

Then there is Capitals00. In an extensive discussion on sourcing between Kautilya3 and JosephusOfJerusalem Capitals00 turns up to make vitriolic comments,[19] with no other contribution to the discussion, and does a revert [20] to Kautilya3's preferred version while there is still discussion going on on the talkpage.

I do not believe for an instant that we can ignore all this collaboration as a coincidence. KA$HMIR (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• But they are years old accounts with thousands of edits. That's why the actual issue here is with the disruptive tagteaming/meat-puppetry involving you and other very new accounts with no edits outside this subject (WP:SPA). Also you have selectively canvassed only those editors in your message that push same POV as yours. Anmolbhat (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I am adding to my comment since I have been accused of "tag-teaming" by KA$HMIR. I do have all these pages on my Watchlist for quite sometime including the ones I have mentioned. Even though I have no edits on them, I still keep track of all the discussions on their talk pages and additions by other users. I only interject when I feel the need to. This was the very reason that I had reverted some edits of your earlier username on a different page. My edit comments on that revert was out of the fact that the page was turning into state of constant reverts and it was me who requested the full protection of the page to ensure a proper discussion took place. I reverted those edits to a point in the page which was before the edits by NadirAli since they were the topic of discussion on the Talk page to maintain STATUSQUO. Lastly, I do not believe in Vote-stacking and unnecessary "show of support comments" as was on display during that RfC. Other editors had raised valid points and continue to raise valid points in the on-going discussion and I have not felt the need to interject so far. And as a matter of fact I have add disagreements with Kautilya3 and MBlaze Lightning on different topics in the past so your accusation of "tag-teaming" seems pre-mature and ill-thought. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, let us see KA$HMIR. Here are your edits intertwined with Dilpa kaur's (who is supposedly a Punjabi and Khalistani), and your edits intertwined with Danish.mehraj26, and your edits intertwined with Josephus (who is a Jewish historian no doubt).

On the the other hand, here are the filer's edits intertwined with mine, those intertwined with Capitals00 and those intertwined with Adamgerber80.

Do you see the difference? I doubt you would. So let me spell it out for you. We all watch whatever pages interest us, and we jump in when we see the need. In contrast, your troops show up wherever you go. No matter what their professed interests are. That is what we are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Intertwined contributions only display the ″last 1000 cumulated contributions of the two users″. It does not show intersections. To check intersections you need to use this tool [21]. The tool shows that Dilpa kaur and I have only edited in 4 same places,[22] of which only 2 are talkpages and the remaining two are ANI and AE boards, likely not even on the same threads. JosephusOfJerusalem intersects with Dilpa on 6 pages,[23] of which 1 is the article you mysteriously turned up to 'uninvited' and only 2 are talkpages. His intersections with me are also only in 6 places.[24] JosephusOfJerusalem has contributed to several places [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] where I and Dilpa have not and similarly Dilpa[35] and I[36][37][38][39][40] have contributed where each other has not.

The same is not true for your friends. The tool shows you and MBlaze Lightning intersecting on 404 pages,[41] many of them talkpages. You intersect with Capitals00 on 404 pages too.[42] All three of you intersect in 103 places,[43] many of them talkpages, whereas I, Dilpa and Josephus intersect only on 2 places[44], 1 of them an AE board. Whatever you say now does not wipe the proof I have provided of obvious tag teaming between your meat puppets. I would even request admins to check your emails. Do you really think you can get away with all the tag-teaming without the rest of us knowing that all this is not a coincidence? KA$HMIR (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That is bogus logic. A sample has to be fair for it to have any validity. The size of the intersection doesn't mean a thing. The longer people are here, the more pages they watch, and the more they watch, the more they will intersect with the others. The intertwine results show a fair simple, and they are showing for you and your friends, people moving into pages they never visited before and siding with one another. This confirms Adamgerber80 observed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Its very curious isn't it how you all end up reverting to each other's versions, even if your meatpuppets such as MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 have had scant input on the discussion talkpages/article content. The tool for catching the socks and meats is intersection tool. The intertwined contributions show nothing except the last 1000 cumulated edits. The intertwined tool, unlike the intersection tool, is not useful for showing overlaps and tag-teamers supporting each other. KA$HMIR (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

MBL is not helping himself by persistently throwing accusations of sock puppetry, meat puppetry or single purpose accounts. He has been doing this for months, perhaps years; only recently accusing me of sockpuppeterring. He is offending numerous people with such accusations. If he continues, he should be topic banned from filing any ANIs and SPIs or at the least strictly warned. This is becoming too much.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's probably worth noting that User:NadirAli has edited ANI 48 times in the last eleven years: 46 of those were to a single thread about him last July, one more was this, and then there was the above. Posting comments like the above about an editor one doesn't like to threads in which one is not involved is generally seen as a form of hounding. Even if one was ping-canvassed. The good faith way of responding to canvassing like KA$HMIR's above would be to tell them to buzz off. I know nothing about this dispute, but interactions like this make me really, really think that the various editors not on MBL's "side" should be at the very least cautioned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, it's almost as if you've missed the fact that MBL filed an SPI against me despite having almost no prior interaction with me. He has been doing that numerous times. Given all this, are you still sure it's me who's doing the "hounding". Forgive me but your comment is indeed humerus, even if not intended to be so.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is having prior interactions with someone a prerequisite to opening an SPI? I would think most SPIs are opened to report accounts one has not interacted with before. Anyway, I didn't miss anything -- you showed up on an ANI involving a user you had conflicted with some months ago (at which time said user had managed to convince a quite conservative CU-enabled user to perform a check on you), and, as a former (repeat) victim of hounding that looked very similar to this, I decided to call it what it was. It seems like MBL opened only one SPI on you, so it's really unclear what you mean by He has been doing that numerous times. [...] it's [not] me who's doing the "hounding" -- are you accusing MBL of hounding you? If so, I would encourage you to present evidence or read WP:KETTLE and retract that baseless accusation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

PS, your comment about my ANI edits are incorrect. I have edited more ANI threads than that in the past 11 years, with only two being directly against me and one indirectly against me and another group of Pakistanis.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait, did you do so under an alternate account or something? I did a pretty thorough check, and it wasn't hard (you've made less than 500 WP-space edits in that time). Are you being pedantic and saying that technically February 12, 2007 was less than 11 years ago? If that's the case then let's just say 10 years, 11 months and 5 days. I was rounding up. The above 2014 diff is the only edit your current account made to ANI between February 12, 2007 and your above off-topic remark MBL, whose edit summary did not include Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles. Ctrl+F "Incidents" and that section title yourself here if you don't believe me -- the former brings up 48 results, the latter 46. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Geogene

For this comment in response to my prior. At what point does such suppression warrant a topic ban? Can someone kindly evaluate? Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Suppression"? And no, one comment observing that apparent endless sealioning of an issue "looks like trolling" is not ever going to "warrant a topic ban," so I'm not sure what you're proposing to accomplish here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, Humanengr has been aggressively using article and user talk pages to promote personal (non-mainstream/fringe) beliefs and Original Research, and he has persisted without acknowledging the good faith responses of other users. In particular, instead of building on other editors' responses to try to reach synthesis or common ground that might result in article improvement, he responds with leading questions that unilaterally attribute POV to other editors with whom he disagrees. This pattern of interaction is unproductive and provocative and in my opinion, yes, it's what we call "trolling". And far from "suppressing" Humanengr, the editors on American Politics articles have bent over backwards to AGF and try, in vain, to explain basic WP policy and guidelines. If anyone has the energy to document OP's behavior in detail, we could consider some restriction on him to end the huge waste of time and attention he brings with him to these difficult topics. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to point out that Humanengr has, since March 2017, made over 500 edits to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but in that same time, only 21 edits to the article itself. I'm not going to dive into that pool of edits to evaluate their quality, but, at least on the surface, it does seems as if Humanengr may be attempting to dominate the discussion by volume of edits, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken, But the article edits are key framing edits as noted in my comment below; to which I’ll add my cleanup of cites for the lede para to provide better temporal ordering. Thoughts, given those additional details? Humanengr (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at the WP:CPUSH essay, checking off how many of these things describe what Humanengr has been doing in the Russian interference article every day for months.

* They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.

* They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. Like trying over and over again to put "alleged" in front of "Russian interference".

* They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information. Like they were doing immediately before I called them out on trolling.

* They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."

* They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.

* They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view.

* They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors.

These behaviors would be considered "trolling" pretty much anywhere. Geogene (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if Humanengr is trolling or just a POV pusher, But I have not been impressed with some of Geogene styles of attack either. Both users I think have issues with NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I'd like to see some examples of my "issues" with NPOV. Thanks. Geogene (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

[45] is a dismissive comment that implies you accept there was interference we we should accept there was (As no RS does explicitly say there was interference). It is certainly POV pushing as much as the OP is a troll. This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives [46], with this added for good measure[47]. This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation. But what many of them are (including) the trolling accusations are disruptive in that they make article talk pages about users, not the article. As you say about the IP's here [48] these posts are a huge time sink, and wastes everyones time.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you claim it's "POV pushing" when I told somebody to quit casting aspersions? [49]. Also, you just accused me of violating NPOV because I accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Are you serious? Geogene (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I said "This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives", as I also went on to say "This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation.". My point is that (yes) if you want to assume bad faith and read the worst possible motive into a users comments yours can be seen as POV pushing (and how about the first link, are there any RS that say unreservedly that Russia interfered?). No I did not say you violated POV because you accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election (which is by the way a POV, one you claim you were saying in an article talk page). I said you claimed RS agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me ask another question. Do you have any sort of positive doubt that Russia was involved in some way in Donald Trump's election? Are you trying to influence the article in that direction? Geogene (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not about my views (or me). Oh and this can also be read as POV pushing, it does not matter what you or I think, what matters is what RS say. Anything else is POV pushing "it did happen and our article must not be allowed to imply otherwise) is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: this is about you, since you're deeply involved there, and since you have found your way into this thread and begun to throw accusations. And, where are those sources that say it didn't happen? I'm assuming you must have them. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Found my way? [50]. You cannot prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. I do not need a source saying "it did not happen", as that is not the basis of an argument I am making, but you have claimed RS have said something. It is thus down to you to either provide that source or admit there is not one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Slatersteven: That link shows a straightforward summary of the problems with Humanengr's longstanding behavior wrt American Politics. Personally, I would characterize Humanengr as a user who does not understand site policy about due weight and original research, but it's been explained over and over and other editors have concluded his behavior is not constructive and have lost all patience with him. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I said he has issues, I do not agree he is a troll.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And if you want to wikilawyer this, I didn't say they were a troll. I said they were trolling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is the same thing, and you know it. But agreeing he has issues, but not the one he had been accused of is not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that it is. And I think you should be introduced to WP:SPADE. Geogene (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec)I think both Geogene and Slatersteven are great collegial editors who've made lots of article improvements. "You're a troll" is a personal remark and cannot be evaluated. "You're trolling" describes a specific action and is readily verified or falsified. Humanengr often trolls, according to the definition of that behavior we commonly understand around here. Geogene did not label him a troll, which would be an hurtful personal remark, especially where the problem arises from incompetence rather than ill will or malevolent intention. The two statements are formally and substantively dissimilar. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering in a nut shell "ahh I did not say he was a "X", I said he wrote like one". As I said I agree that Humanengr has series issues that should have been reported here a while ago. But I do not accept that saying someone is trolling is not calling them a troll, after all are you not what you do?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Helpful guidelines - Fair enough. Let's not get sidetracked, however. Here is guidance we can use to consider Humanengr's behavior:

• Disruptive editing and the pages WP:DE WP:CIR SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems from the above that SPECIFICO agrees with Slatersteven that Geogene called me a troll? Do I read that correctly? Can some more neutral party pls weigh in on this point in isolation? Tia, Humanengr (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Humanengt I went out of my way to defuse the label "troll", which I said is not useful and could be a hurtful label, and to concentrate on your behavior, which is what Geogene did. So as I have explained at too much length already above, I do not think it's useful to accuse Geogene of something he did not say. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, SPECIFICO, the issue is not what you said but what Geogene said. [Cont’d below in response to Geogene.] Humanengr (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You want someone to weigh in on that point in isolation? Isolation from what? The question of whether or not you were trolling at the time? Why would you want to separate those two issues? I was pinged again. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ll broaden the issue. Can an admin please weigh in here regarding the issue of verb vs noun (saying someone is ‘trolling’ vs calling them a ‘troll’)? That would be informative. Thx in advance, Humanengr (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Note also here that I credited you specifically for a compromise re ‘concluded’ and ‘high confidence’ in the lede. And this is how you repay? Humanengr (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've noticed a tendency to not learn from RS, but to constantly push views that can only come from fringe and unreliable ones. This creates endless circular discussions with no progress. This makes them a time sink, where we cover the same stuff again and again. No positive learning curve shown by abandonment of debunked views and adoption of newer and improved ways of seeing things. An inability to see the difference between a RS and an unreliable one gets right to the heart of WP:COMPETENCE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, re ‘views’: cites pls for where am I pushing ‘views’. Humanengr (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can see how that comment could look like trolling (I can't imagine a person who follows this issue would actually need a citation for that), but I don't think that it was trolling. A number of points could be made by first asking for a citation, and then responding when such is given.

I can't speak to the disruption caused by either party on that page as I've not been paying close attention to it lately, but I will say that I've seen both editors contribute positively to discussions in the past, and haven't seen either behave in an over-the-top partisan manner, or engage in disruptive behavior before. One or both may well have become disruptive in the past few months, but given my experience with them, I'd need to see some pretty clear evidence before accepting it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, Have you taken into consideration this post? Are you of the opinion that all know the trend in “the general public’s sense of ‘interference’ as being ‘allegations’ was becoming weaker”. (I, for one, have not seen polling data either way.) Thx, Humanengr (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Denial of the Russian interference went from plausible ignorance to fringe conspiracy theory nonsense over the past +/- 2 years. Of course that could change when the 400 pound basement Hackensack hacker is apprehended. In the meanwhile however, for Humanengr and a collection of IPs to bring up a continuous unfocused stream of carping complaints without the remotest suggestion of workable edit improvements is unacceptable. It doesn't matter whether it's called trolling, it should be prevented and as long as we're here we have the opportunity to craft a fair and constructive restriction on this kind of disruption. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think Humanengr (talk · contribs) was extremely unhelpful on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. This is WP:TE. They should stop editing this page or this may finally lead to a topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

My focus all along has been the framing of this article. Toward that end, it was

1. This exchange between JFG and myself that led to the insertion of “is highly confident” (later helpfully further changed by The Diaz to “with high confidence”, a direct quote from the PS) in the lede sentence.
2. The effort starting here, progressing through this and ending here that led to 3 words of context in a navbox at the bottom.

The lede sentence and the bottom navbox; the former to start the body with an accurate statement of what the ODNI did find and the latter to show any such alleged activity is not unique.

But I failed on one issue that Slatersteven captures perfectly when he says: “no RS does explicitly say there was interference.” Note that Geogene misinterprets by responding “where are those sources that say it didn't happen?”.

And the title presents ‘interference’ as fact.

I regret my failure to correct the top of the frame. Apologies for that.

I believe if you look at the record, you will see that the frame has been my focus.

I will comment further anon as necessary, Humanengr (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

no RS explicitly state there was such interference that is such spectacular bullshit [51], [52], [53]. You have a bizarre POV that's at odds with reality. Worse, you're perpetually trying to Debate Club it into the article. You never let anything go. You were just now complaining about the article's title. You're still trying to plant "allegedly" in there to cast aspersions on the mainstream view. People have been trying that since December 2016. It never goes anywhere. The reality of Russian interference, per sourcing, never goes away. You know the former, you must surely be aware of the latter, yet you keep bringing it up. This is unacceptable. Geogene (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And I can't remember exactly what Slatersteven said earlier. If you quoted them correctly, then shame on them, they should be embarrassed for such an absurd falsehood. But--this is a key thing--they're not tendentiously trying to wear everyone down with endless argumentation to change the article to reflect their (alleged) POV. In fact, their lashing out at me here earlier is probably the first time I've seen them cause any problems. Geogene (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, are the links provided by Geogene in the preceding para sufficient to change your view expressed above that “no RS does explicitly say there was interference”? thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Care to comment? I’m getting a better handle on our differences but think we are in sync on this. I await your take here given your exchange with Geogene above. Humanengr (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well people need to read more then the headline "– a security research firm said that the same Russian hacking group" "and should largely be considered an arm of Russian intelligence as they attack American institutions." "The hackers, said to have links to Russia’s GRU military intelligence unit" "The intelligence community concluded last year that Russian hackers probed election systems". So in fact they seems to be very careful to attribute or caveat the accusations whilst saying it happened. As I said we need a source that unequivocally says it happened.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Examples - It's in the nature of this kind of behavior that single diffs don't readily convey the extent of the problem. So I am linking a few threads. These are just from the current talk page. This has been going on for a long time. Other editors may have further examples. There is a long history of the same behavior at article talk and elsewhere. Keep in mind, the concern is what Geogene correctly described as trolling. It's not overt incivility, personal attacks, etc.
There's_still_little_evidence_that_Russia's_2016_social_media_efforts_did_much_of_anything[54] [55] [56] Then after that long first thread went nowhere, he reopens the issue again here: Recapping from above § on WaPo’s Philip Bump on social media SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is a diff from December, 2017. Humanengr gained no support in a long thread rehashing a previously settled issue on the article talk page, but he continued to press a pointless and circular discussion of the question. So @MrX: launched an RfC to definitively settle the issue. The link shows some of Humanengr's engagement at the RfC. Note that he mass-pings @MrX, Neutrality, Geogene, O3000, SPECIFICO, My very best wishes, Slatersteven, Fyddlestix, Casprings, Gouncbeatduke, and ValarianB:, which can only be expected further to prolong the repetitive discussion. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Propose TBAN from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Let's see where we stand on this. Per MVBW above, please indicate your views on a TBAN of @Humanengr: from this article and related topics, broadly construed. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Per above. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I can see where you're coming from, but I'm reluctant to TBAN him from the whole subject area at this point. It's a gut feeling, that's all. What would 'broadly construed' consist of? Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 00:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia definition for TBANs -- just means that the user could not go to an article on the CIA, e.g. and remove a reference to the report on Russian hacking. Unless others have a better definition for this case, I think using the common framework makes it easier to deal with. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Has he been warned before (I am not sure this has been raised here before). If the answer is yes I support a TBAN, if the answer is no then he should be warned that his actions are unacceptable and that if he continues he will get TBAN (with maybe a small temporary sanction at this stage).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Humanengr has been engaging in polite dialogue and careful editing of the contents (as noted above, he made many more edits to the talk page than to the article itself). I understand that he can be criticized for verbosity and insistence, but that's a far cry from "trolling". Most of his contributions and questions are designed to try and improve the article. Sure, some editors disagree with his POV, and this is why we have talk pages. In my view, neither Humanengr's nor Geogene's behaviour are actionable. They should go back to the talk page, mutually AGF, and strive to reach consensus. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the "regulars" at that article, so I'm well-versed in the events reported, their history, the evolution of the article, and the perennial disputes about it.) — JFG ^talk 12:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a serious issue with him raising the same damn thing 15 times worded slightly differently whenever he does not get consensus (over, if I recall rightly, over multiple forums). But without kind of community Waring it seems unfair to ban him over this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would add I find it very odd that no one deemed his actions report worthy, until he reported another user, and then they leaped straight for the TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

When someone is just being disruptive with WP:ICANTHEARYOU, it is not an easy case to bring, and even harder to get action on, from what I've seen. Most editor don't want to risk WP:BOOMERANG and gain nothing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Humanenegr has been warned more than once by Admins, and numerous times by civilian editors, on talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So now admins have been militarized? EEng 16:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Cf. GorillaWarfare, NuclearWarfare and Bongwarrior. - MrX 🖋 17:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention D'Armies. EEng 01:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

EEng, why are you dragging me into this? What topic ban am I getting? I'm militarized? Y'all heard I got a Daisy Red Rider for Xmas? Drmies (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural comment – SPECIFICO is under an April 2017 sanction enjoining her to refrain from requesting sanctions against her fellow editors, except via the WP:AE process or an uninvolved admin's talk page. Her public call in this thread for a boomerang against Humanengr appears to be a violation of her own AE sanction, which arose due to similar inappropriate behaviour in the past. Pinging NeilN for comments, as the administrator who imposed the sanction on SPECIFICO. — JFG ^talk 12:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• @JFG: I agree that input from NeilN would be helpful here, but this discussion could at least be argued to be about community sanctions, not discretionary sanctions, which would therefore fall outside SPECIFICO's sanction. Of course an admin could unilaterally impose a TBAN as a result of this discussion and then who knows where we'd be? GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• @JFG and GoldenRing: While the wording of my sanction restricted SPECIFICO to those two specific places, the purpose of the sanction was to stop SPECIFICO's practice of calling for sanctions on article talk pages and user talk pages. Requesting sanctions on an admin-geared noticeboard is not disruptive and does not go against the purpose of the editing restrictions I placed on them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – It seems almost prejudicial to "see where we stand" on a topic ban on an editor without a proposal for the topic ban which has been backed up with accusations of bad behaviour supported by diffs. This proposal lacks such evidenced accusations, and cites this post by My very best wishes which neither proposes a topic ban, nor contains supported accusations. Cjhard (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Links are provided in upper section. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I think that comments by Humanengr do not help to improve this page, but result in significant waste of time by other contributors. However, this should be up to contributors who frequently edit this page. If they want to debate these issues with Humanengr to infinity, this is their business. My personal inclination, as an occasional participant of this page, would be to support this proposal. If there is a clear violation of anything (I do not really know), this should be reported to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems like much of this is a difference of opinion rather than actual disruption. And jumping straight to a topic ban is a step too far. fish&karate 15:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly way beyond a difference of opinion. A TBAN or page ban seems less restrictive than a block, but if you feel there should be, say, a 6-month time span set for the TBAN that would be less of a restriction than a TBAN that would need additional community process in order to lift it. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments like that on article talk page can be viewed as an WP:NPA problem. When repeated multiple times, this is a WP:TE pattern. Hence my vote above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support per previous comments by SPECIFICO, Geogene, Bullrangifer, and Beyond My Ken. This user is congenial, but their many voluminous posts are a time sink and a net negative in this subject area. Volunteers should not have to waste hours upon hours of their unpaid time swatting at every oddball theory this user comes up with. Several attempts have been made to get Humanengr to alter their approach, to no avail. They show a lack of understanding and inability to grok our core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 16:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Considering the obvious contentiousness that led to this, I could get behind a 1 week TBAN for one or both parties. Note that this is exceedingly short on purpose: I've seen them both engage productively, so I know they can. But apparently tempers have been rising, based on the discussion here, so maybe doing something to cool them down would help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support a one-month topic ban on Humanengr, for all things Russia/Putin. Now that I'm aware they've been arguing "nationalist bias" over at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. [57]. I guess if they can't cast doubt on whether Russia interfered, next best thing is to say America does the same thing. This is obviously tendentious. Geogene (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Time-sink, tendentious, POV pushing. Needs to stop. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Geogene. This is a specious, other things argument. Yes, America does interfere in the politics of other nations, and has done it for generations, BUT that's not the subject here. For me, the tipping point is the continued pushing of doubts about whether Russia interfered in the election. To me, competence as an editor is intimately related to a positive learning curve. We should learn from RS, and trust them in the same way we should place our trust in scientific research. For scientifically falsifiable "facts", the best we can do is trust good research and place it above our own opinions. The same applies here. We should place our trust in RS, and change our minds, giving up the opinions which differ from them. We can "have our own opinions, but not our own facts" (Moynihan). It's not imperfect, but science and RS are self-correcting, unlike erroneous opinions.

Until Humanengr starts openly admitting that Russia interfered (and is still interfering in US politics) in the election, I will not totally trust their competence. A month-long topic ban seems appropriate, and I think we have a right to expect evidence that the topic ban has effected a change of their opinions on the matter. Otherwise, in the future, I'll support a much longer, and wider, topic ban. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Et tu? Let’s start here: “Yes, America does interfere in the politics of other nations, and has done it for generations”. How many of those were reported unequivocally (Slatersteven’s term above) as “America interfered …” (your terms) by your vaunted RS news media? Tia, Humanengr (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not the subject of discussion. This is about Russian interference, not American. That's for a different article. Bringing up American interference is a red herring to change the subject. It doesn't help you. This diversionary tactic is also an example of the tu quoque fallacy. Just because America interferes does not justify Russian interference, and in this article we're only dealing with Russian interference. United States involvement in regime change is thataway >>>>>. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The subject of discussion is the standard you offered to judge one’s behavior: “We should learn from RS, and trust them in the same way we should place our trust in scientific research. Etc., etc.” I offered a test of that standard by applying it to a different sample set. In response, rather than admit you can’t provide data to validate your proposed standard, you improperly accuse me of tu quoque:

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

I do not claim Russia did not interfere. I dispute the unequivocal claim that they did.

As Slatersteven noted, no RS news media source makes that unequivocal claim.

The issue is not my competence but, judging by your own criteria, yours and Geogene’s and SPECIFICO’s in reading RS news media as stating unequivocally that Russia interfered. Humanengr (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You are ascribing statements and views to other editors that you can not document with diffs. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You, here:

Oh. Glad to try to explain my view. The article is about the interference in the election. Some aspects of interference were first reported in the press around March 2016 I believe, then in subsequent reports in various media throughout the balance of the campaign. Then after the election we had official confirmation that the intelligence community had been tracking this and then we had the so-called JAR in early January, 2017. Now I think it is important to differentiate between the events themselves and the sources and reporting that revealed those events. Obviously the process of investigation and revelation is ongoing and we do not yet have a full accounting of all of the various modes of interference and their extent and effects. So, whatever was in the JAR was placed there by its authors to balance two sometimes conflicting needs. By the way this is true of any revealed national intelligence estimate. The goal is to give the public as much information as possible about the interference while not revealing our intelligence sources and methods. Given that constraint, the information in the JAR was incomplete. The information available to officials with security clearance was far more extensive and detailed. That's still the case today.

After the JAR came out, we started to get various editors who claimed, because the JAR could not reveal those still-classified details, that the conclusions in the report are incorrect. We initially had many such editors. Now we're down to a small few. They cite marginal sources for this fringe viewpoint, and are quite adamant about their POV. They are attaching great significance to the level of detail in the JAR because they seem to feel it casts doubt on whether the Russians were involved in any cyberwarfare against the US. But this is nonsense. The report is just one account of part of the story. The story itself is the interference itself. That was my point -- that this fetish about the report itself is off-target.

Thank you again for explaining your position. Humanengr (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment This is a helpful example of what attempting discussion with Humanengr is actually like: Endless sealioning, Whataboutism, and a tendentious pro-Russian POV. This is why they need a TBAN, because they're still not getting it. Geogene (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to say Humanengr you are not doing your case any good here.12:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Akandkur

Akandkur has been creating errors and adding irrelevant information on KQEH, making the article hard to read. He is not here to build an encyclopedia. He has also been engaged in an edit war. [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a NOTHERE pattern of editing to me. I see that you've attempted to engage on talk, but you need to either continue doing that, or find someone else to help you deal with their lack of response. Edit warring along with them will get you both blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've warned him not to add unsourced content. What Sarek said - keep discussing. If the problem continues then let me know. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer

There's an ongoing situation which does not appear to be getting any better. TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs)

Hammer, as is his habit, and his right, has been busy AfDing articles. A typical example (no involvement of mine) would be Education in Moldova / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in Moldova as "Meandering mess with no central topic, no sources, no notability. If there is a topic here, then WP:TNT and start over. This has been sitting to rot for over 10 years and no one will even so much as look at it. "

It's not the AfD that's the issue here, it's the attitude. There is no way "Education in Nambia" is going anywhere, so just what is this AfD expected to achieve - other than an opportunity to slag off editors in general? TNT is not policy (I'm one of those who's long advocated it). There is a stream of those, all of much the same "How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?" attitude.

I got involved here: WikiProject Automobiles#Bandini deletions where 18 articles were blanked as redirects in 5 minutes flat, their category speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G6 for being empty (a technically invalid CSD anyway, see WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#G6 on "empty" categories?) and the related category and template XfDed at CfD:Bandini Automobili / TfD:Bandini Automobili. These deletions were robustly opposed. I also warned Hammer that this was heading ANI-wards.

There's plenty more of the same - AfD:List of ecclesiastical abbreviations AfD:Petroleum politics for just a couple.

At AfD:History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. we see another where there is no chance of that topic being deleted. Closed as an unsurprising speedy keep. After which all of the keep !voters were then boilerplated with "So are you going to fix History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. with the sourcing that supposedly exists, or are you going to just let it stink up the wiki forever?! "

Given that I'd just removed his prod of Sterilant gas monitoring and fixed up the issues involved, I do not need or deserve this sort of abuse.

It is not acceptable to stalk opposing !votes like this. Certainly not in this continuing context. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I replied that way because none of the Oldham !votes addressed how the article was notable. They were just WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:DEADLINE, none of which are valid rationales for keeping an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you are lying here. RetiredDuke gave you six sources for it, right in that AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my own position here, I would like to delete it per IDONTLIKEIT. It is sports content, I have zero interest in it being here (and I'm also the last person able to expand it). But that is not policy, so it doesn't count for anything. The topic, given its significance, is a shoo-in for GNG and (as confirmed by the sources given) there will be sources around for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See also this very recent thread at WT:MILHIST; TPH has been on something of a spree lately of nominating obviously-notable topics on the basis that he hasn't heard of them or doesn't like the sourcing. This isn't a new issue—TPH has been doing it for close to a decade—but the problem seems to have significantly intensified recently; as well as the AFD activities Andy Dingley raises above, I'd estimate that whenever I clear out CAT:EX at least 50% of the WP:PROD nominations I decline as inappropriate turn out to have been nominated by TPH when I check the history. ‑ Iridescent 21:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Check out for Articles_for_deletion/Cliff_Padgett as well; there is a series for false claims about inability to source. (The fellow shows up, in context, in good sources, from a simple Google search.) Before that, it was PRODed] with a rather low-key edit summary. Anmccaff (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest making a list of editors who post the most PRODs that are declined, double check to make sure that it isn't one admin doing all the declining, then topic banning the editors on the top of the list from PRODing articles.

This is getting a little meta-, but I'd suggest doing no such thing unless you also checked it against AfDs, too. Anmccaff (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't check PRODs at all, because they can be removed for any, and indeed spurious, reasons. AfDs would be the only metric to use here. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Meh. There's guaranteed to be someone at the top of the list regardless, so that's not automatically evidence of a problem. Reyk _YO! 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Most of this was me trying to clean out the backlog at Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. Most of the articles I found were in such dire shape that I felt WP:TNT was the only way to treat them. And it infuriates me when people scream for a "keep" in an AFD but are utterly unwilling to do the legwork to unfuck the article. So it gets stuck in an endless loop of "Keep, it's notable, here are sources." -> no one adds sources -> Article looks like trash -> Gets nominated for AFD for looking like trash -> "Keep, it's notable, here are sources." -> no one adds sources, on and on and on. It wouldn't get under my skin so much if the people who are clamoring for the sources they find would add them to the article because it's really not that fucking hard.

That said, I'm going to be less deletion crazy next time I attempt to plow through a backlog that big. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, you either did not bother to check for sources, or you checked and lied about it. That's not a minor error. Anmccaff (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:ATD is policy, TPH. Trying to use AfD to clear a cleanup backlog is inappropriate, disruptive and, as you surely must have noticed by now, futile. We don't delete articles for fixable content problems and editors who !vote to keep an article because they think it is fixable are under no obligation to work on it. It's not a case of "being less deletion happy", it's paying attention to what deletion is actually for and doing your due diligence so that you're not wasting others' time. – Joe (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's also a shame that when Andy Dingley removed the PROD from Sterilant gas monitoring and spent a while cleaning it up, he didn't check that at least half of it was a copyright violation. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a point, or are you just shit-stirring? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Charming. But, yeah, the somewhat obvious point would be that if you're going to remove a PROD from something, it might be a good idea to actually check it for obvious issues, but perhaps that's just me. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• No action: I don't see trolling here. Just a deletionism-inclusionism dispute that's boiled over to a noticeboard. When someone holds a belief that's different from yours as to policy and practice, it's entirely possible for that belief to be held sincerely, and for those actions to be taken in good faith. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Bandini_deletions? Bulk-blanking 18 articles in 5 minutes (so no actual review of each) with descriptions of "not notable", "all technical garbage", "redundant and all technical crap" and "unsourced fanwank" is not a valid attempt to clean up anything, it's an excuse to slag other editors. Then boilerplating the keep !voters [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] is not any part of the AfD process that I recognise. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What's bold redirects have to do with this? Redirecting poorly-sourced small articles containing primarily technical details to a master article is good practice. Frankly, all those articles should be merged and redirected to something like List of Bandini Automobili vehicles, and all the cruft should be removed. As to the talk page messages, they may be a bit confrontational, but again, this is WikiPolitics: deletion vs. inclusion. It's not trolling, let alone sanctionable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And here[69] is another case of inadequate prod summaries. There is clearly an abuse of procedure here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

• Comment TPH has also been using "No sourcing found" as a reason to delete well-sourced articles. For example, List of Marvell Technology Group chipsets has no less than 36 references. –dlthewave ☎ 01:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detrended correspondence analysis had plenty of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

Just stumbled over that. Got my goat too. This reminds me of someone angrily lashing out at things that don't fall into their personal area of interest or understanding. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

See also this one. Same "no sourcing found". The sourcing is not terrific, but there is certainly some "out there", and in the article as well.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think it's "trolling", per se, but the fact of the matter is that when I first became an admin back in the halcyon days of 2011, I quickly noticed that, WP:HAMMER-subjects aside, TPH's nominations at xFD were...we'll call them spotty at best, and they have not improved - if anything, they've gotten worse, with nominations that indicate a complete failure of WP:BEFORE (for instance the nomination of {{Petty family}} for deletion, which was refuted with five seconds at Google - and, some times, the distinct impression the subject being nominated wasn't even read. I'm not sure what can be done here, procedurally, as TPH does do good work, but he needs at least to spend more time researching topics before nominating, as this is a continuing behavorial issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest a week's ban on prods and AfDs, to be extended for a further period if behavior does not improve. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

• Not "trolling", but as Iridescent says above, ill-advised deletion attempts have been an issue with TPH for about a decade. He gets impatient about articles that are in poor shape and slaps Prod and AfD tags willy-nilly. Then people complain (and sometimes topic bans or blocks are suggested) and he takes it easy for a while. The last RFC/U (remember those?) in 2012, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer, led to an endorsement by TPH that "some of his nominations to AfD are problematic and will endeavor to make nominations more in line with current community consensus". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – The user's recent commentary at AfD discussions is troubling, such as ordering users what to do, belittling, ad hominem statements and swearing at them. See below for examples. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Diff – "You just admitted there is no sourcing, yet it's notable anyway? On what planet do you live?"
• Diff – "You seem lost. Sources go in the article, not in the AFD. Try again."
• Diff – "So are you going to fix it, or are you going to just let the article fester and rot forever?"
• Diff – "You seem to have confused the AFD for the article. IF you find sources, put them in the article, not in the AFD. Try again."
• Diff – "And saying that there are sources = adding them to the article right? If there are souces, WHERE THE FUCKING FUCK ARE THEY and why are they not in the article? Don't say there are sources unless you can fucking prove it yourself, mmkay? Otherwise, I could say there are sources out there on my own ass, and it could have a fucking article."
• Diff – "And that means the article is now automatically FA right? No one ever needs to do anything to it again? It's notable, it's the best thing ever on this goddamn wiki? How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?"
• Diff – "So trivial that you didn't even add them to the article. Because you clearly believe that saying "I found sources" is the same thing as adding them to the article right? They will just magically add themselves."
• Diff – "Again, finding the source means it automatically adds itself to the article, right? Nothing more has to be done here? It's automatically turned into an FA just because you found that? If you're going to argue notability and dig up sources, then how much harder is it to fucking add them? I see this all the time: people scream their heads off that it's notable, argue that it be kept, but no one ever adds the sources, so 10 years later the article is still an unsourced trainwreck."
• Diff – "What's stopping you from adding them? AGain, are you expecting the article to magically turn into an FA overnight just because you said keep? If you're gonna talk the talk, walk the walk. Not that fucking hard."

• Comment This user, in addition to clearly working against WP:CIVILITY, does not often reference proper deletion policy, acknowledge WP:GNG, and their WP:BEFORE checks have been incredibly insufficient (if they are even performed). It took me 20 seconds to find that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Asajile Mwambulukutu fulfilled WP:NPOL. I've suggested to them that if they are really oh so bothered by the poor quality of certain articles, they ought to make the fixes themselves (curiously, they did not respond). These accusations that other users do all the work are rather hypocritical. After all, if it's "not that fucking hard" for someone else to add cited info with new sources, then surely TPH can do it themselves, "fixing it instead of sitting on [their] fucking hands". I don't consider this trolling; TPH isn't disrupting the system for the sake of disruption. They just want to get rid of things because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This user has been around too long to be unaware of the criteria for deletion and ignorant of how to conduct a proper BEFORE (aka Google search and clicking). They should know better. I for one would like to see them topic banned from AfD until they demonstrate some civility and an understanding of deletion policy and BEFORE. Otherwise they are just wasting more of our time with Deletion nominations that should never have been thrown into the queue in the first place. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment- This looks like TPH making a bunch of ill-advised deletion nominations and exasperated comments at how crappy some sections of Wikipedia are, but not trolling. Reyk _YO! 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not for the PRODs and AfDs, but when it comes to these, after the AfD has closed, [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] I find it hard to think of any other term for it. It's a closed AfD, even though he then re-filed it immediately afterwards (and then thought better of it) so just what are these comments intended for, or likely to have the effect of? They won't change the article, all they're going to achieve is to gratuitously piss off a bunch of editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Being exasperated and annoyed with editors who don't fix things is not trolling. Accusing someone of trolling is essentially the same as accusing him of vandalism except in talk or user talk space, that is, editing in talk spaces to undermine the community deliberately. I don't think what TPH is doing there is deliberately aimed at undermining the community, but at pushing for responsibility. And I really don't think it even has a negative effect other than getting people's attention. This is one of those situations where someone does something I wouldn't do, but that I wouldn't do it doesn't make it sanctionable. Andy, I expect better proof of misconduct from someone of your expertise. In particular, the discussion you cite above at WT:CARS draws more attention to your own reactions than anything else. I seriously fail to see why you felt the need to rush to ANI over a bunch of bold redirects. That you are Tired of this guy is hardly relevant, and I am really surprised at your response to an honest commment from TPH, that him saying there was nothing worth keeping in the redirected articles should bring the case even closer to ANI. Andy, disagreeing with you is not cause to bring someone to ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I share Hammer's exasperation at article quality, but as I've already said, it's the way he goes about it, not the issue that has brought him here. His attitude was heading that way already (and not for the first time) and I made that very clear. Blanking a whole set of articles is wrong (they're hard to source in detail, not unsourceable - Bandini are listed in all of my "complete encyclopedia of" books, just not in much detail) - but to disparage the articles as "unsourced fanwank" is tantamount to disparaging the editors in that area as unsourcing wanker fanboys. You do not get to slate other peoples' interest groups like this, any more than I get to delete Oldham Athletic because I've no interest in footie. For him to then start harassing his opposers at the Oldham AfD has gone beyond exasperation to trolling of individuals, and that's when this went to ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - this will go around in circles until TenPoundHammer gets a topic ban from the deletion process. fish&karate 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• I understand his frustration. There are a number of articles - a very large number in fact - whose current content fails core policy, but whose subjects are asserted to be notable and thus they are defended. This is an existential conflict between "the subject is notable, therefore the article must exist and it's not my job to render it compliant with policy" and "the article is not compliant with policy so should be nuked regardless of the importance of the subject" (ake WP:TNT). This struggle is as old as Wikipedia and will never go away. My suggestion to TPH is to try stubbing them instead. Just nuke the no-compliant content and recognise that any article that is part of Wikipedia's international directory of education topics will never be deleted. We don't need to re-fight the school wars. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • ​The thing is, he's not restricting himself to pages whose current content fails core policy, and it's fairly clear from his deletion rationales that he's not actually reading the articles either; he's just slapping deletion tags on anything he doesn't like the sound of. As a very recent example, this is what Chad–Sudan relations looked like at the moment he tagged it for deletion with a rationale of No basis for an article. Like most X-Y relations articles, this is just a random slapdash collection with no focus; for the benefit of those who aren't aware, the borderland between Chad and Sudan is better known in the west as Darfur and the uneasy relationship between the two countries is one of the most significant in Africa, and if TPH had even performed a 30-second skim-read he'd have been aware of this. This isn't a one-off but a consistent pattern; as well as the assorted examples given in the OP and the claim that the Battle of Pęcice must have been a hoax because he'd never heard of it and his lying about there being "no sources" when I pointed out that I'd found multiple RSs within two minutes, we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin house, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petroleum politics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public domain film just from a dip-sample in the last few days. ‑ Iridescent 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Most of this bilateral relations articles are either a series of news stories or blatant OR, but I take the point. However, I also share TPH's frustration with people who !vote Keep, assert that there are sources, and leave an article unsourced or otherwise crappy. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two points of concern here:

• There is clearly no attempt to follow WP:BEFORE here. While a one-off AFD nomination without BEFORE could be understood, and a few of these look obvious that BEFORE wouldn't have helped, most show that the AFD nominator should have done work ahead of time to better justify the reason to AFD the articles. AFD is not cleanup. The AFD process is geared to put the onus on those deleting, though if the issue is something completely unsourced, then yes, those !voting keep need to be doing some legwork to avoid deletion via WP:V.
• WP:FAIT is also appropriate here. While the breadth of the articles do not necessary impact one set of editors too much, still nominating this many articles at one time is flooding the system (particularly admins and regular AFD editors). This FAIT point would likely be less of an issue if the first point about BEFORE had been followed, but this still should be kept in mind.

Why we ask these is not something well documented in policy so I can fully see TPH's argument that they were using tools available to do necessary cleanup work. That's a reasonable AGF argument, but that's why TPH should be well aware now that this is not the approach to take in the future. --Masem (t) 16:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- I am not an admin, and am currently mainly patrolling CFD and the AFD lists for History and Christianity, which is as much as I currently have time for. Most of my time is devoted to editing a book on the history of the iron industry, which often contains research based on primary sources. If I come across blatant mistakes I correct them: in one recent case I was mistaken and my edit was very properly reverted. The problem as I see it is that certain editors are nominating articles for AFD, because they lack (or have inadequate) in-line references. However WP:V requires that content should be verifiable, not that it should be verified by in-line references. A distinction needs to be drawn between articles that are not credible and are probably WP:OR and those which may be correct, but lack references. Some of these will require research in secondary (or even primary) sources, because relevant and credible material (WP:RS) is not available on-line. The right answer in such cases is to tag the article for its defects, in the hope that some one will fix them. As far as I am aware there is no time limit for this. TenPoundHammer's fault seems to applying a time limit, rather than devoting his time to fixing those defects that he can fix. Some of these may require the editor to have access to a library or even primary (archival) sources, but not every book is available in every library, and archives (unless digitised or filmed) are generally only available in a single repository. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• TPH needs to be topic-banned from all deletion-related activities. His nominations are often wilfully incompetent and his attitude stinks. It has always been thus, and it's time he was prevented from wasting so much of other editors' time. --Michig (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have agreed to this, and I'm the OP.

But then I was reminded of this, from 2012: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer

There has been no change in six years. Same old problems. So yes, "topic-banned from all deletion-related activities". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical marine climate looks germane to this discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearly he wasn't in the same O level geography classes I sat through... 8-(

To continue with this crusade of badly thought out AfDs, even whilst ignoring an ANI thread on the same topic is indicative of the underlying attitude problem here. Topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Prodding by stealth shows wilful Bad Faith. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

• Alternate suggestion. We've got a couple of problems here. First, we've got a lot of well-intentioned but abandoned crap articles. Lots of those have been tagged for cleanup without a reason given (probably out of desperation), and so contribute to an appalling backlog of 9200+ articles in that cleanup "category", some of them there now for nearly 10 years. Doubtless various people have wanted to address that backlog before, but have been cowed after poking around and finding themselves somewhere between confused, lost, and disinterested. So I emphathize with TPH for advocating a "blow it up" solution to cut the Gordian knot. I also emphathize with those pushing back, saying notability is there, sources exist, the article can at some point be improved by someone (just not them!) and so policy says don't delete.

To TPH: You're definitely not trolling, you're trying to improve the encyclopedia. But you are being disruptive, because your approach is not achieving its objective, namely improved or deleted articles, because in your end-justifies-the-means approach you're making too many factual errors about the existence of sources, and because you're unproductively annoying other people who could be on your side. Rather than a formal TBAN from deletion processes (which is gaining traction here out of frustration, may lower collective blood pressure, but won't solve the underlying issue) could you make a voluntary commitment to not PROD or AFD articles explicitly or implicitly based on WP:TNT until/unless it becomes accepted policy, to not assert lack of sources in a deletion discussion unless you have taken real time to check, and to not argue with others about whose responsibility is it to fix an article. Instead harness that energy to propose and help enshrine into policy a better solution for abandoned crap articles. I could see WP:TNT, or some version thereof, becoming policy, now that we're a lot more mature than 10 years ago. Or if not, a solution with a template saying something like "This article has been abandoned for many years, in a state a far cry from what we aspire to. If it's a topic of interest, please help us improve it" bot-added to any article that's been in cleanup-tag purgatory for 3+ (or whatever) years. The details need fleshing out, but I think people could get their heads around something; and it will have much more positive impact than frustrated AFD nominations, speedy keeps, recriminations, and unchanged articles. Martinp (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• As I noted above, I support no action here because I see no misconduct on TPH's part. I also see no disruption, contrary to what Martinp asserts above me. The incident that appears to have triggered this report, a thread at WT:CARS, is not even related to deletion, but to boldly redirecting old unreferenced articles. That TPH has a history with deletion is true, but we aren't here to discuss past conduct, we're here to discuss whether TPH has done wrong. Focusing on past conduct is prejudicial and only really relevant to remedies. That is, we are putting the cart before the horse. Again, TPH has not been shown to have done anything wrong, and talk of sanctions—whether or not they're disguised as voluntary restrictions—is both premature and inappropriate. There is no consensus that TPH has done wrong. So let's slow the hell down. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you consider it appropriate to blank an entire series of articles with no discussion and no attempt to add references? –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I went through some of TPH's recent AfD nominations and I agree with those who find them to be inappropriate and disruptive. While TPH may be frustrated with articles that need better sourcing, AfD policy does not support that as a deletion rationale if sources exist and can be found. And TPH is aware of this. So bringing articles to AfD and then harassing participants in the discussion who point out existing sources is disruptive and inappropriate conduct. And this has been going on (possibly on and off) for years. Rlendog (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: He didn't blank anything. He redirected unsourced articles that had sat unsourced for ages. This is a perennial problem in the deletionist-inclusionist debate, the matter of WP:BOLD merge/redirect actions. We do not have a functional process for this, so the usual method is to be bold. So, responding to your actual question, whether BOLDly redirecting unacceptable articles to a master article is appropriate, my answer is that it is entirely appropriate. Taking someone to ANI for being "tired" of him, as Andy said at WT:CARS, is the inappropriate action taking place here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider dropping the F-bomb because other users won't adhere to your demands to be in line with WP:CIVILITY policy ([76])([77])([78]). And same with repeatedly nominating things for AfD without citing proper deletion criteria outlined in the deletion policy after years of working in AfD (these aren't just mistakes). -Indy beetle (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom would tend to disagree with you, that swearing on-wiki in the midst of a dispute is inappropriate, let alone uncivil. Fairly recently, I recall someone telling another to "fuck off" was not a civility violation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it ought to be. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC).

Agreed (both). I seem to remember that this would have been a CIVIL breach (and rightly so), but clearly not of late. I think it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I still think it's absolutely frustrating that people say "Keep, it's notable, see, here are sources" but never add them, so five years later, the article looks like absolute shit. How hard is it to just add it yourself? We've been around this block so many times -- people have questioned my civility in this, but no one has ever agreed to do anything about it. I would think that if I were being disruptive enough to cause a problem, that something would've been done years ago. So why don't we just drop the stick and walk away from what's left of the horse? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

...we seem to be getting around to doing something about it, bide a while... regarding "no one ever adds sources", that's just a vast crock. I don't hang out at AfDs much (more so recently due to NPP drive), but in a couple months I've seen a least a dozen that came out of the discussion with "Keep" due to refs having been improved by participants. Which is still not a requirement. Consequently your approach of bombing AfD with sloppy nomations to coerce people into cleanup clearly strikes many as disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

On that point, I move to close. The above comment, which is pretty representative of the other complaints in this thread, deals entirely with disputes over Wikipedia policy and simply couches those complaints in behavioral dispute language. TPH is absolutely right that these sorts of AfD outcomes happen, and in my opinion is absolutely right to call people out on them. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, but it is not an indefinite webhost of materials that violate core policies. We need to find the balance between WP:TIND and WP:NOT, and bootstrapping an ANI thread in order to silence people with whom you disagree is not how we develop policy on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

​But again, materials that violate core policies isn't the issue here; the issue is that TPH is arbitrarily tagging pages for deletion based on the fact that he hasn't heard of the topic (typically using the edit summary of "add", presumably in the hope that watchers will be less likely to spot the deletion tag being added), and lying about claiming to have searched for sources when it's clear he hasn't. Which "core policies" are you suggesting Chad–Sudan relations, Tropical marine climate or Battle of Pęcice are breaching? ‑ Iridescent 09:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think TPH and Melndaliv are right that it's unhelpful to just dump a list of purported sources on the discussions and walk away (or worse, simply assert there must be sources out there somewhere and then walk away) without any thought of actually bringing the article up to a minimal standard. But a bunch of ill-advised AfD nominations is not a useful way of dealing with the problem (though on many of them a good dose of TNT is exactly what's needed). And if TPH is using misleading edit summaries then that is a problem, more so than just getting grouchy about a lot of shitty, never-to-be-improved articles. Reyk _YO! 09:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Dumping a list of sources but not adding to the article (whether at the talk page or the AFD page) is helpful, but practice has evolved that as long as those sources are identified and linked in a common sense place to the article (eg the talk page, the AFD header that should be on a talk page after it closes, etc.) then for purposes of sourcing, we are supposed to treat the article as if those sources were included. This can lead to sloppy articles, no question, but I also agree that as long as we have no deadline and the location of those sources are obvious, using AFD to force cleanup just because those sources aren't in the article is very much against the spirit of WP. Tag with a maintenance tag instead. (The other issue of simply asserting there are sources but not supplying anything close to a proper WP:V link, that's different, and needs to be stopped). --Masem (t) 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I'm not talking about those articles, and nobody else in this thread seems to be talking about those articles either. In fact, you bring up the other problem with this thread, that it's like a shifting sand dune. There's no actual substance or consensus to any of the complaints here, just a bunch of people with different problems or different complaints airing them. This isn't a proper use of ANI, and there's no administrative action that could possibly lie to address the myriad minor complaints that have been brought up. It's time to nip this thread in the bud and close it now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

How about no. There's a large of number of statements here that TPH's behaviour is experienced as disruptive and they should change it. Your inability to understand the issue if it's not presented in a two-sentence executive summary is not a reason to shut down the discussion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• 1. We are constituted that articles don't need to be sourced to pass AfD, they need to demonstrate an ability to be sourceable. TNT is not policy. You are right that articles are poor and that they ought to be better, but it's not policy to use AfD to delete them when they aren't. Either accept that or get out of AfD.

2. How about you doing some of this? - a serious invitation. Rather than PRODing "sterilant gas monitoring" as "no sources", do what I did and add some. Takes longer, but it achieves more than a handful of snowball AfDs being thrown right back.

3. This cleanup relies on other editors, not just one brave hero and his flaming hammer o'justice. So starting out by pissing off all the likely editors is no way to encourage anything useful to happen. I got as far as taking the Bandini books down off the shelf but still haven't worked on the articles (and chances are probably won't) because having articles continually described as you have been (which is just plain unacceptable anyway) is no way to motivate any efforts to improve them. Bandini only built something like 70-odd cars (cars, not models) and we have 18 articles. Are they really all separate notable models? But at present no-one is really looking, because you've entrenched an opposition from the cars project who have taken the entirely expected line that the only way to defend against your bulk actions is with a bulk defence. Maybe the 1963 750bis belongs as a section in with the 1962 750, not separate, but your attitude has completely shut down any such discussion. You are acting against your own supposed goal of encouraging cleanup. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment In line with my Alternate suggestion above, but trying to get away from the debate on TPH's conduct here, I have proposed some options for policy solutions to the issues at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Pruning/blanking_abandoned_very_bad_articles. Would appreciate comments there how we can move forward, away from the glare of should individual X be doing something and is a sanction needed. Martinp (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

How about a 3 month total ban from PRODs but not AFD's. If at the end of that time TPH's AFD hit rate doesn't start to improve (at least 70% ending in delete/merge/redirect) then a total ban from deletion? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: There's no consensus that misconduct has occurred, let alone that sanctions are required. Let somebody lay out a coherent case that there's misconduct first. Everything thus far has been disjointed and vague waves to a long history of problems. This kind of thread is how ANI gets its "pitchforks and torches" reputation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If you think there is no problem after reading all of the above, looking at their PROD/AFD history and the various comments linked by editors above, then short of eating a baby I doubt there is anything that would convince you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, there is no coherent case of specific misconduct anywhere above or below. All that's happened is a bunch of people have come out of the woodwork to air assorted, unconnected grievances against TPH. Many of the complaints aired in this thread have nothing whatsoever to do with deletion and would not be addressed by this preposterous topic ban. Similarly, most of the arguments above and below do not support a single, coherent sanction, but just a mishmash of "topic ban from all deletion" or "topic ban from AfD" or a bunch of other things that aren't even related or supported by any evidence. If this discussion results in any sort of topic ban, I would counsel TPH to appeal it to the Arbitration Committee immediately, because there is simply no coherent consensus emerging here, let alone discussion among the complainants. There's just a bunch of angry people saying angry people things into a wall of text. This is not discussion, let alone deliberation. This is simply another case of ANI bringing out the pitchforks and torches because someone unpopular pissed him off. Unpopularity is not and has never been cause for sanctioning or punishment, and couching someone's unpopularity in terms of him being "disruptive" or in terms of "protecting the project" does not mask the odious nature of this sanction. I am appalled. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No coherent? Unconnected? Not supported by evidence? Editors have provided multiple diffs showing where TPH has clearly not done the basic groundwork to nominate an article for deletion. Multiple diffs over an extended period have shown this behaviour to be disruptive to a wide range of editors. Your post above has no basis in reality and is verging on outright fabrication. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from AfD, CSD, and PROD, based on this thread and especially on Northamerica1000's diffs. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC); edited 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from all deletion related areas I agree with some of my fellow editors above that TPH, for all his probably good intentions and all justified frustration with WP:Somebody else's problem mentality, has not yet grasped (and apparently is unwilling to ever grasp) that policies and guidelines apply to him as well and that just nominating stuff for deletion is neither helpful nor allowed by policy. If he were to invest all that time and energy into acutally fixing the articles he finds problematic, the project would be better off and banning him from deletion might achieve just that.

  In addition to the examples provided above (the most fragrant of which is imho trying to use the "uncontroversial maintenance" G6 criterion to get rid of things he does not like (and, unfortunately, suceeding)), there was recently a slew of A7 mistaggings and misleading and incorrect statements regarding his edits and those of others. Examples:

• Tagging Muslim society №3 as A7 because "non notable" and then taking it to AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim society №3), claiming "A7 declined for no reason" when a reason was cleary stated
• Using the edit summary "add" to tag an article for deletion and then at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional Broadband Consortium he claims "A7 declined without comment" when I certainly have given him the reason
• He seems to think that "fix" and "add" are valid edit summaries for almost anything, including removing huge parts of an article and tagging articles for deletion (after removing the claims of significance) and prodding them, something multiple editors have asked him to stop multiple times, see [79]

Even though RFA#7 was nine years ago, all the concerns that were raised back then about his approach to deletion still appear to be well-founded today and I'm sure TPH knows that his approach is not correct but still he persists time and time again. I think after 14 years, we should honestly consider whether his approach and the drama it causes again are really worth his participation in deletion related areas, especially also considering the valid points NA1000 makes about his civility in such discussions. Regards SoWhy 10:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban from all deletion related areas - per North America’s diffs, as noted by Softlavender, and subsequent discussion and diffs. This person is an abusive bully of the type who the community needs to sanction. Actually I’m in favor of an indef block from the project until some genuine contrition and commitment to complete change is expressed. I thank Andy for standing up and speaking out. Jusdafax (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose- I definitely do not approve of the less-than-informative edit summaries, and it would be hypocritical of me to try to excuse it when I have previously criticised others for lying in edit summaries. On the other hand, what's happened in the past when someone on the inclusionist side has used inaccurate edit summaries to obscure what they were really doing was to smile benevolently and pat them on the back. It won't do for the community to mete out punishment and praise for the same behaviour depending on wikipolitical affiliation. Futhermore, the preceding debate looks more like a mish-mash of unrelated gripes and grumbles. Let there be a coherently set out case against TPH first. I don't approve of the misfire AfDs but, since the articles are getting kept mostly, it's hard to see any major disruption. Reyk _YO! 11:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I follow: If the nominator knows that the AFDs will be kept mostly because he is deliberately ignoring WP:NOTCLEANUP, how is continuing to nominate such articles that not a major disruption? And if an editor persists in using false edit summaries after multiple people asked them to stop, including pointing out that several policies in fact require that they use informative edit summaries, how is that not disruptive? Just saying "Well, when editor X did that, he was not sanctioned", is not really a strong argument, because you admit that TPH is doing something wrong, you just don't feel like it's fair to sanction them for it when others weren't. For the record, I think anyone trying to obscure their edits in edit summaries should be sanctioned, not just "deletionists". Regards SoWhy 11:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support a topic ban for all deletion related areas at very the least. After reading through all the above it seems clear that TPH's presence in the project is disruptive and a massive time sink for other editors. I think an indefinite block would actually be the most appropriate action until and unless TPH can demonstrate a genuine understanding of why his/her activities are problematic and can provide a convincing argument that it will not happen again. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from delation activities. My attention was first drawn by this AfD, which I closed in some good-humour, assuming it to be an aberration of sorts (although the MILHIST thread was disquieting). But for those who do not see a long-term pattern of disruptive nominations and/or persistent and outright failure of WP:BEFORE, This is TPH's last fifty AfD noms. There is a proportion that have been or likely will be closed as delete, in line with their nom. Good. There is also, though, a massive number which are clear keeps and snow-keeps, and it is far too great a proportion to be justified. Do a spot check if you will: try and find the ~10% that are actually in-line with the community's thinking on WP:N. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from deletion activities for a limited time. The lack of sufficient BEFORE is one thing (Darfur? Really?). The misleading edit summaries is another. The abuse of people who find sources but don't shoehorn them into the article is another. Put them all together, I'm pretty sure it's time for a break. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• While I concur that TPH means to improve Wikipedia, this is clearly not the way to go about it, as it results in creating frustration and wasting the time of productive editors. Question: Is it possible to give something like a "community admonishment" – in this case to adhere strictly to our Wikipedia:deletion policy (in particular, to present a valid reason for deletion in the nomination), to apply WP:BEFORE diligently before nominating, and to maintain WP:CIVILITY strictly in the ensuing discussion)? If so, I'd prefer that possibility to a topic ban. If such an admonishment is not possible, I support a topic ban, but strongly suggest issuing it for a limited time period, like 12 months.  --Lambiam 13:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all deletion processes. His behavior there is largely disruptive. After wasting users time by nominating obvious notable topics neither the Keep voters nor he the advocate of "forceful cleanup" fix the article thereafter and this makes his approach as useless as it is. Majority of his PRODs are declined likewise AfDed articles are kept. He should better channel his deletion zeal in fixing these articles, but it is clear this will not be done easily by himself. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions at this time. Mr. Hammer is an excellent Wikipedian with the interests of the project at heart. Here is the essence of the problem: Looking like shit is not a valid rationale for deletion. I appreciate the frustration about things looking like shit, and I appreciate the frustration about people willing to vote keep but not willing to invest time improving articles on topics which they don't care about, BUT that is not the function of AfD/PROD. These are for deletion of topics about which no sufficient sources are extant for improvement of the article in a satisfactory manner. It's not a testing ground for (extremely rarely granted) TNT deletions. So I would ask this: that Mr. Hammer promise any future deletion requests in 2018 not be made on a TNT basis, but be based solely upon the range of valid deletion rationales, including especially Failure to Meet GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  To quote TPH himself from his last RFA (#7) back in 2009: "I think that my last RFA failed over concerns that I was editing too fast and making sloppy mistakes, as well as sending too many submissions to XFD. I have tried to pace myself some, and I have reined in the XFDs a great deal." (he said something similar in his 2012 RFC/U). Well, it's 2018 now and we are again discussing exactly such behavior. I'm probably someone who is almost religious about both AGF and BITE but even I don't think anything short of actual sanctions will help with an editor who has behaved this way for more than ten years. And again, I think this would also be in his best interest to simply keep away from an area of the project in which he will likely never behave as the rules expect him to; in fact, I expect that continued participation in these areas will sooner or later lead to a site-wide ban. Regards SoWhy 17:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  Speaking of consistent behavior, for those who have not followed all TPH related discussions, here are some highlights from 2010, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2012, 2012 (just stuff I could find with a quick search of the archives). It's unfortunately not the first time we have to consider his behavior in deletion related areas but hopefully it might be the last time. Regards SoWhy 17:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from all deletion-related aspects of Wikipedia (broadly construed) until such time as TPH can show that they know how to a) interpret notability and b) interact with other users in a civil manner. GiantSnowman 16:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Their behaviour is contrary to our guidelines such as WP:BITE and WP:DISRUPT. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support a ban from nominating articles for deletion. Given that he hasn't taken the hint either from the thread above, or from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Concerns Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Longhorns & Londonbridges, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Move request, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive753#Webcomic COI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Back off the Hammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 14#WP:PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro del Sur, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#False accusationsWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive665#Hullaballoo yet again..., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#3RR advice, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#April Fools' Day article, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#TenPoundHammer's article redirections and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer, or from the concerns raised in all seven of his RFAs, that numerous people have concerns regarding his approach and that this perception isn't something new but is an issue going back a decade, then he's never going to get the hint that IAR doesn't mean "ignore any policy you don't feel like following". If Carrite is correct that TPH is an excellent Wikipedian with the interests of the project at heart, then there are numerous ways he can improve Wikipedia without both annoying the people who writes the articles he tag-bombs, wasting the time of people who vote in the doomed-to-fail AfD discussions he starts (the current current deletion rate for AfDs he nominates is between 25 and 30%), and wasting the time of the admins who have to assess his WP:PRODs and close the AfD debates he starts. I'd be inclined to allow a slight bit of wiggle room by which if he finds an article which he genuinely feels is unsalvageably bad, he's allowed to post on the talk-page of the relevant WikiProject and suggest that someone else consider nominating it for deletion. ‑ Iridescent 17:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Adding for those who aren't aware that while this conversation is ongoing TPH is still nominating articles for deletion on spurious grounds. ‑ Iridescent 16:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

    Note that this nomination was made shortly after he commented here that "I admit I burned myself out by trying to take a chainsaw to Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field and ended up making far more prods and AFDs than necessary." I am really trying to AGF but he is making it almost impossible with such nominations... Regards SoWhy 17:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef topc ban per my comments above. --Michig (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- on the condition that TPH agrees to not nominate articles solely based on WP:TNT and avoids making uncivil comments at AfD. Some (but not all) of TPH's nominations are definitely legit. The problem is that TPH seems to believe strongly in WP:TNT deletion, but a lot of people do not. I happen to think that bad articles that have existed for some length of time should be deleted, but understand that not everyone agrees.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for limited time. There is plenty of evidence of bad behavior which outweighs the good. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC).
• Comment I think it's pretty clear that there is an absolute lack of consensus here. I admit I burned myself out by trying to take a chainsaw to Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field and ended up making far more prods and AFDs than necessary. I have stopped "stealth prodding" if I feel a prod is warranted, and I have been trying to re-tag without instantly nomming everything right away. I do do searches, but sometimes it seems I have this magical power to not find things on Google that everyone else does in five seconds. Again, if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • How exactly do you read 13 Supports versus 4 Opposes (one of them a Weak oppose) as "an absolute lack of consensus"? It's nonsense and disinformation like that statement that has gotten you in this position, and you're not helping yourself by digging in further. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • A bunch of people talking about different things but who say "support" do not make a consensus. Your reading of the situation is the precise reason why WP:NOTAVOTE is a thing. There has been no deliberation or any real discussion other than my take-downs of many of the points in the section above. As I said above, doing unpopular things and being unpopular is not and has never been a cause for sanctioning, and if a sanction comes out of this I sincerely hope TPH immediately appeals it to ArbCom. This is a classic ANI clusterfuck of a discussion and why this board gets such a bad name. A bunch of people screaming that they want blood is not how we do things on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
      • There is overwhelming support, with rationales, for a topic ban from deletion activities. Three users want only a limited-term ban. One user limits the ban "from nominating articles for deletion". This is all standard stuff for a closing admin. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Hysterical overreaction. --Calton | Talk 03:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all forms of deletion nominations. Aside from the useless comment directly above, the opposition has been reasonable, but I respectfully disagree. TPH has made numerous problematic nominations and has compounded the problem by berating those who disagree with him. If TPH is so concerned about having someone add the sources to the articles, why doesn't he do it himself? If editors step away from the work they were doing to fix the articles he nominates for deletion, is there really any net gain? Also, despite TPH's argument that "if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now", we can see from Iridescent's evidence that TPH has found himself in hot water over and over and over. It is time to stop kicking the can down the road. Lepricavark (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support a temporary topic ban, which seems like the only reasonable incremental step to take. TPH does a lot of valuable work, but, having read through this entire thread, there's clearly a refusal to go along with standard operating procedure and inappropriate remarks when asked to. It should be said that the examples here are a handful of a very high number of edits -- TPH is prolific, to be sure. My hope would be that being required to take a break from the activity would show that there isn't a perpetual lack of consensus about his/her editing such that it can continue indefinitely. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all forms of deletion nominations. I came here after seeing another of his bad nominations for AfD that lacked any effort to WP:BEFORE. I see he's been warned for years and years and years to change. Now is the time to topic ban.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support temporary topic ban from AfD nominations. I would have thought that the above expressions of concern might make the point without the need of enforcement. But since TPH seems to feel that they are doing just dandy and everyone else is blowing bubbles for the fun of it (that repeated insistence that "if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now" is really... oblivious), maybe some formal prod IS necessary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite I hadn't commented, because I was far from convinced. However new comments (above) like, "I think it's pretty clear that there is an absolute lack of consensus here." show that Hammer still has such a total lack of insight into the problem that nothing will happen otherwise. I'm against a temporary ban, because this has gone on for years without improvement already and Hammer can't say that he wasn't made aware of this before. "Again, if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now. " seems to be a recognition that a topic ban is warranted.

As to, "I have stopped "stealth prodding"" (presumably referring to PRODing articles with the edit summary "add") then I'm glad to hear it. That behaviour of itself is a reason for a sanction. What possible GF reason is there for a "stealth prod"? Similarly deleting categories by using WP:CSD#G6. Right or wrong, we do not get to bend the rules like this because "we are in the right". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support But would prefer a throttle to an outright ban. TPH'es approach overwhelms the community of editors. We can't fix everything, right now, and that's more or less his demand. If he were limited to a small number per time period, the quality of his nominations would probably improve. In any case, with a smaller article count, the community could focus more on fixing rather than merely defending. But if we continue to get this flood of nominations, it only feeds a cycle. It only takes a couple of seconds for one editor to take an article to AfD, but countless editors read through them, do searches, evaluate, etc. just to assert notability, no time is left to improve articles. This disruption needs to stop.Jacona (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from all forms of deletion nominations, per Michig and others above. I had hoped this would go down the road suggested earlier above by Martinp, but that appears not to be happening. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose TPH does a lot of good clean up work. It's not glamous but extremely necessary to have a useful resource here. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Many editors agree that TPH does a lot of good clean-up work, but he does a lot of bad clean-up work too. That is what is needed to be stopped. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

I guess the question becomes, "How do you encourage the good cleanup while stopping the bad?" You can't topic ban someone from making bad decisions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily correct. If the bad decisions are all made in a certain area - here it's deletion - then topic banning someone from this area means they cannot make those bad decisions anymore (at least without risking a site-ban). Regards SoWhy 08:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Overreaction. This is an indisputable shot across the bow; provide a warning or admonishment from the consensus in this thread and consider a topic ban if, and only if, the behaviour continues. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

As other editors have pointed out, warnings have been provided multiple times in the past. The behavior has continued for years. –dlthewave ☎ 02:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, Iridescent pointed out above that TPH created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felipe Cardeña while this "indisputable shot across the bow" discussion was in full swing (and he created AFDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical marine climate after he was brought here for creating such AFDs). As multiple people pointed out, this behavior has been warned against many times in the past, including seven RFAs that failed and an RFC/U. I wonder when you think it's been enough if 10 years of people cautioning him to not behave this way was not. Regards SoWhy 09:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyrighted material hosted on a personal webpage

At the Danny! biography, a couple of Atlanta-based IPs have been edit-warring with me, returning eight "references" to the article, the references being copyrighted material from news and entertainment sources, all of it hosted on dannyswain.com, Danny's own webpage. Am I interpreting the rules right in removing these? Or are they okay to keep in the article? Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No they should be removed obviously, Using that subjects is fine providing the content is in their own words - If it's been nicked from various places and dumped on their site then no their site shouldn't be used and I would go as far as to say it should be added the spam blacklist. –Davey2010^Talk 21:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hold on. More discretion is called for here. We do link to sites using fair use materials. So if the clips are a few seconds they should be okay from a copyvio point of view. Links to lengthier clips fall afoul of our linking policy but be sure these clips are not embeds from properly licensed sources. If they are, link to the official source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I assumed they meant the text was being copied from news sources and pasted on their website, If we're talking about clips then I don't really think that's problematic. –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No, there is absolutely no text being copied from news sources. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

With the exception of maybe one cited link, which again includes original music composed and performed by the subject, any content (all created by the subject) seems to be less than a minute long. The edits seemed very impulsive as we have seen other articles linked identically. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you are linking to entire talk show performances and commercials "nicked" without the permission of the copyright holder. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct, this is the one "more than a minute" clip I was referring to. Anything else related to works-for-hire (commercials, songs) by the subject does deem copyright, and I'm having a hard time understanding otherwise. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The subject does not own copyright over work-for-hire projects like commercials. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There isn't any content being "nicked" or "dumped" anywhere, the sources in questions lead to work created by the artist and hosted on his personal webpage as a source. Please enlighten me, genuinely as this does not seem to be in any violation, what the issue is. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation, no admin issue. Discussion of relevent external links belongs on Talk:Danny!, obviously. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your posts here are getting less and less helpful... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Now the Atlanta person has passed 3RR with this reversion. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, despite what 86. says, there are violations of our linking policy. I've reverted and semied the page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see any material hosted on dannyswain.com. There are several links to videos on dannyswain.com but these aren't hosted on dannyswain.com. They are embedded from other websites, either Vimeo or Youtube. It may or may not be better to link to the videos on the source site. In cases where the site the content is embedded has no relevance to the content or article subject, it's clearly not appropriate to link to some random page the video is embedded, for reasons unrelated to copyright. In cases where the site is directly related to the article subject and may provide additional context for the video, there are probably good points for both options all unrelated to copyright, and this should be discussed on the talk page. But embedding should not count as a copyvio, it's an accepted part of how the internet works and the owner of the channel is free to disable embedding if they don't wish this to happen. So what really matters is whether the original channels can be trusted. One of them is from Sesame Street's official channel [80] [81]. There's zero reason to think it should be considered copyvio. All of the other ones seem to be on Vimeo on the channel of StarTower Music, Ltd. [82]. These may be more questionable and probably should be discussed in an appropriate place. (Although remember that besides fair use, the hoster of the channel could have obtained appropriate permissions.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I looked into that yesterday and it seems StarTower Music is Danny Swain. I'm not comfortable in saying the appropriate permissions were obtained from the copyright holders. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see any material hosted on dannyswain.com. There are several links to videos on dannyswain.com but these aren't hosted on dannyswain.com. They are embedded from other websites, either Vimeo or Youtube. It may or may not be better to link to the videos on the source site. In cases where the site the content is embedded has no relevance to the content or article subject, it's clearly not appropriate to link to some random page the video is embedded, for reasons unrelated to copyright. In cases where the site is directly related to the article subject and may provide additional context for the video, there are probably good points for both options all unrelated to copyright, and this should be discussed on the talk page.

But embedding particularly of videos from sites like Youtube or Vimeo should not count as a copyvio, it's an accepted part of how the internet works, viewers still see any advertising and can also access the original channel and the owner of the channel is free to disable embedding if they don't wish this to happen. (There may be legitimate disputes when it's more akin to Hotlinking and the site owner may not really wish it but hasn't restricted it due to the complexities.

So what really matters is whether the original channels can be trusted. One of them is from Sesame Street's official channel [83] [84]. There's zero reason to think it should be considered copyvio. (And again, whether it would be better to link to the video directly on Youtube or embedded on dannyswain.com should be discussed if necessary but the decision should come down to reasons besides copyrights.) All of the other ones seem to be on Vimeo on the channel of StarTower Music, Ltd. [85]. These may be more questionable and probably should be discussed in an appropriate place. (Although remember that besides fair use, the hoster of the channel could have obtained appropriate permissions.)

Nil Einne (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ban evasion

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

---

I gently ask the blocking of 201.215.141.30. Diego Grez-Cañete has been evading his ban under that IP. The IP accepted he was the former user in Sctots Wikipedia. Best, --Warko ^talk 21:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thattaway. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Warko: Don't take it to SPI. The IP's edits are too old for any action to be taken now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Joefromrandb conduct

I am requesting admin intervention with respect to the article talk page behavior of Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at talk:Kim Davis. Joefromrandb, who was the subject of an RFAR in November. There is a discussion underway about revising the lead. Here are some of Joefromrandb's contributions so far:

• "It was developed by collaboration among overtly biased editors who somehow managed to get it through a GA-review with no less than 3 outright lies in it, to say nothing of the myriad biases and exaggerations."[86]
• "Hopefully nothing now. That's all been dealt with. I'm just noting that Mr. X again and again edit-warred demonstrable falsehoods back into this article in the past." [87]
• "Oh, yeah; how could I forget the most-recent pile of bullshit: "Davis and her staff were found to be paid too much". [88]
• "That's real cute, El C: purposely waiting & protecting the wrong version. I used to respect you." [89]
• "It sure fucking is. [90]
• "You put lie upon lie into this article, so please don't pretend you have any interest in it being "good"." [91]

He has been especially hostile to Prhartcom (the editor who I believe took the article to GA status). Example: Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 6#Write, don't just revert

Edit summaries:

• let's be real
• spare me
• more lies
• so disgusting
• fuck no!
• bollocks

Joefromrandb has a history of edit warring and berating editors,[92][93] in lieu of collaborating with them. Arbcom decided not to do anything about this three months ago, so I'm now asking someone to do something about it now. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 23:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is nothing new. The lies to which I referred are indeed lies, and all there in the article's history, along with its talk page, for everyone to see. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of lies, this user has conveniently chosen not to mention the bits of my original post to El C that I struck as inappropriate many hours ago. You simply can't make this shit up. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: whatever the factual status of the article (now or previously), your assumptions of bad faith and sniping at other editors is extremely unhelpful. Surely, whatever problems the article has can be fixed without calling people liars or trolls. clpo13_(talk) 00:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"Trolls" perhaps, but the issues with the lies are crystal clear. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Where is a list of the supposed "lies"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb. When you accuse another editor of repeatedly adding "lies" to an article, then you are obligated to provide proof in the form of diffs. Mentioning the edit history of a lengthy, complex article is not sufficient. Provide proof promptly or withdraw the accusations, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I already went through this with El C on the article's talk page. The (partial) list of lies is right there. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned on the talk page, I think items on the list should be expanded. El_C 04:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's pushing midnight, but in the morning I should have time to post a complete lie-by-lie summary. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Even one diff would be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Midnight has come and gone. Are we going to see the lie-by-lie summary with diffs or a retraction? By the way Cullen328, Clpo13, and El C, this still doesn't addresses the hostility like calling editors "overtly biased", or the edit warring. Or this or this If this isn't going to be addressed here, then I'm just going to take it back to Arbcom.- MrX 🖋 23:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem with that, MrX. Go for it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. I was really hoping to avoid that for all of the obvious reasons, but as usual, ANI is just not working. I will give it another day or two on the off chance that someone comes up with a creative solution. If I hadn't started the Kim Davis article and collaborated with so many great editors there, I would just walk away and let it be someone else's problem. But I can't. I'm seeing a good article damaged by retaliatory editing and editor morale (including mine) harmed with vicious attacks on their motives and their honesty.- MrX 🖋 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) Regarding the "lies", the threshold for content inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Content is either supported by reliable sources or it is not, and that is the basis of content discussions. Referring to content as "lies" is nothing but an obvious breach of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Demonstrating with diffs that content isn't supported by sources does not justify referring to it as "lies". I vaguely recall being involved in the dispute in some way and I'm pretty sure there were just conflicting understandings of what the sources said, varying interpretations of wording, a really mundane and trivial dispute. Certainly nothing to warrant personal attacks over an unrelated content dispute years later. Given this user's block log, something should be done. Preferably a voluntary retraction and a genuine, non-passive-aggressive pledge to either be civil or recuse from that content dispute, but short of that, I would support a block or alternative remedy. Swarm ♠ 00:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have to agree with others that Joefromrandb has perennial and unabated conduct issues, has been brought to ANI many times, has been blocked many times, and yet still has not changed. I agree that an ArbCom case may be necessary, since the trips to ANI do not seem to work. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

My, oh my

Can I please have an administrator look into the contributions of this seemingly combative, aggressive editor who is refusing to get the point? It seems they get into the same old, same old arguments on current event portals, as well as displaying frighteningly incompetent behavior. Their contribution history should suffice to display they are single-purpose only. Thank you. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 02:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It is almost certainly the same person as this person who made the same poor edits to 'current events' and refused to communicate other than agressive edit descriptions claiming everyone was a 'troll' or 'sockpuppet'. Murchison-Eye (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm and to think that I "dude"d them in October. Blocked for 31 hours. Keep an eye on this--I'm sure they will return. If they come by to chat, that's great. If they keep this "you're a troll" bullshit up, we'll look into rangeblocks. PS MURCHISON-EYES YOURE JUST A TROLL HERE WITH YOUR OBVIOUS BIAS, maybe? ;) Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: See Special:Contributions/2600:8800:ff0e:1200:38cb:9114:760:e5f1/64, this is their range. I was dealing with them in October. Home Lander (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Home Lander. I have never seen a range that was so truly home to one editor. The only thing that is stopping me from blocking the entire range for a few months is the good article edits they make, and the fact that one should never block before breakfast. I am interested in the opinion of some other admins. And in coffee. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: The disruptive Portal edits seems to have a political agenda - recent ones [94] [95], and one where they edit warred with me and several others last year [96]. What would be great is a software change so you could block someone by namespace, in this case, disallow Portal edits from this range. Home Lander (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What a great idea. The Moose 06:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

New account adding contentious cats

Would an uninvolved admin take a look at a new account, Jenny0627forever (talk · contribs · logs)? It was created in July 2014, used for the first time and only a few times in February 2015, then created 丹寧日 in April 2017, and on 18 January 2018 created several contentious categories about feminists, including Category:Biphobia feminists and Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminists. These are being added to BLPs, and the account is edit-warring to restore them when they're removed. For example, see Janice Raymond, Sheila Jeffreys, and Germaine Greer. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that @SarahSV is one of the partisans in the dispute about those categories, and has repeatedly declined to even acknowledge my requests[97][98] that per normal CfD practice, articles removed from categories under are listed at the discussion so that editors can assess the articles concerned and their souring.

Every CfD tag includes an : "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress".

I disagree with the BLP concerns, but can accept that if genuine they would justify breaking the don't remove rule.

I would find it easier to sustain AGF if discussion was not being undermined by the non-disclosure at CfD of which articles have been removed. I hope that SarahSV will remedy this situation soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Describing anyone with an arguably-negative category should only be done where there is a clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources which do so; when in doubt, the category should be removed. This is because categories are not nuanced, but strictly "either-or." If there is any level of dispute or debate about the categorization's applicability, we need to default to "no category." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV did the right thing. BLP-violating labels on the bottom of the article are not ok just because a CfD discussion is running. Update the CfD tag. Perhaps ask for category-removal diffs to be logged in the CfD, if this doesn't perpetuate the violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If articles are removed while the categ is under discussion, that removal should be disclosed at the discussion. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 18#Category:Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminists is discussing an empty category. Without disclosure of what articles the categ might include, editors not already well-versed in the topic will lack crucial context, including the ability to assess whetherthere actually was a BLP violation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That's quite right too. let's continue at Template_talk:Cfd#Removing_members_during_a_CfD_discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah c'mon SmokeyJoe. A discussion on conduct while CfDs are underway needs much paticipation than will arise from putting it on a template's talk page. It should be located at WT:CFD, which is watched by over 20 times as many editors as Template talk:Cfd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is another case of Wikipedia being used to right great wrongs by labeling articles without regard for how the subject is described in reliable sources. These categories have been created: Category:Biphobia • Category:Biphobia feminists • Category:TERF violence • Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism • Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminist books • Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminists • Category:Transmisogynic violence • Category:Transmisogyny • Category:Victims of TERF violence. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• See CfD:Victims_of_TERF_violence, CfD:Biphobia_feminists, CfD:Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminists, also Talk:Julie Bindel for further discussion of this.

If there is edit-warring over these, it's minor and on both sides. It's deliberate removal by one side, citing BLP as "TERF is a slur", despite it being a sourceable self-identified label. Emptying categories during their CfD discussion is particularly wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion has gotten off topic. This is supposed to be about Jenny0627forever (talk · contribs · logs) edits. I find her edits to be problematic. However, I'm even more concerned about the fact that she hasn't responded to any of the challenges against her edits. She seems determined to right great wrongs and appears to lack in understanding of Wikipedia policy. I think a block until she attempts to communicate with other editors might be in order. JDDJS (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Jenny0627forever's last edit was at 03:46, 19 January, so perhaps it has stopped. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Phishing website imitating Wikipedia - thread on Help Desk

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

---

Please see this thread on the Help Desk. A website is imitating Wikipedia and asks for usernames and passwords. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Мит Сколов

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

---

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

Мит Сколов has a bee in his bonnet about apitherapy, a form of quackery. Among xyr advocacy behaviour we see edit summaries like stop attack on public health, it's all medline & systematic review. There's no apparent understanding of WP:MEDRS and the like. I have no real opinion on xyr other edits, but the promotion of apitherapy is becoming disruptive, as per the talk page yesterday. I think at this point there should be a warning that further POV-pushing will lead to a topic ban. Per xyr Talk page, this editor is a co-ordinator for a group offering quack apitherapy for what sounds to me very much like the non-existent chronic Lyme disease. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hello! I'm from Russia (excuse mу for my bad Google Translate English). Apitherapy is not "quackery". "Bee venom (BV) therapy (BVT), the therapeutic application of BV, has been used in traditional medicine to treat diseases" PMID 17555825 (Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2007). "Bee venom therapy (BVT), in which bee venom is used for medicinal purposes, is available worldwide, but is primarily utilized in Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America" PMC 4440710 (PLoS One, 2015). Are you talking about Lyme disease? Yes, it's also there - PMC 4549745 (Toxins, 2015). Yes, it's all MEDLINE & reviews. And there is something else: in Russia it is legal, use supports of society, scientists and the state. Anyone who speaks Russian will confirm this to you: article about apitherapy on Great Russian Encyclopedia [99], in the state legislation (articles 4.5 & 3.12), in education for example in Moskovskij Komsomolets. This has a long-standing roots, see book of Member of the US National Academy of Sciences May Berenbaum - [100]. Russia has many excellent scientists on Apitherapy: Nikolay Artemov, Shamil Omarov, Boris Orlov, Vasily Krylov, Alexander Ivanovich Tikhonov et al. Thank you for attention --Мит Сколов (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And despite Russia's "excellent scientists", it's still quackery. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Can't we find a category for traditional or nature-based traditional medicine? Many people feel it works: e.g. the pharma sector makes all kind of artificial cannabis derivates, however the curative effect of the hemp flower resin is known since millennia. I think the so-called 'quackery' argument is a bit too much (ab)used. Cannabis as a pain killer for instance is not quackery, people know better than the greedy industry and police. Wakari07 (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"Traditional" and "nature-based" are code words for "quackery". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd call that a prejudiced opinion. Most pills from doctors that i took either had no effect or an adverse effect. Since I stopped taking their pills, i'm healthier than ever. Their "quackery" is their problem, not mine. Wakari07 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your failure to work more closely with your doctor is decidedly your problem and your prejudiced opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's an evidence-based process. I feel you a bit tense. Wakari07 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You should not be feeling other editors that way. #MeToo EEng 05:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at confirmation bias. --McSly (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm so "lucky" that I don't need a doctor to tell me I'm healthy. Now can we talk objectively about the proven merits and dangers of apitherapy? Wakari07 (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The article already covers those things pretty well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that Traditional Chinese medicine, for example, can legitimately be called "quackery". Paul August ☎

You would be wrong. See Category:Pseudoscience. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

They have indeed been ranting on bee related articles, but it's mostly been ignored so far. This editor hasn't really got the point that this behavior is not in line with Wikipedia though. Since this editor has been notified of discretionary sanctions in CAM topics on their talk page, any admin is free to impose sanctions such as a topic ban. There have been enough editors at the topic keeping this editor in check that a topic ban isn't quite at the level of absolute necessity , but it would keep the community's time from being wasted even more at this point (usually the tipping point for when topic bans become warranted). Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

But no matter how you want, I intend to continue to write about science and scientists. And you can not stop me or remove it, because I use good sources, and you and your friends can only attack me personally. --Мит Сколов (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually we can stop it and we can remove it. Change your attitude now. --Tarage (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Even the Pentagon rescinded their war-on-terror-panacea today. I think the anti-quack horde may also find nuance in the long run. We better work constructively together. Wakari07 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Science: how does it work? Hint: "anecdote" is not the singular form of "data". --Calton | Talk 04:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Facts. If and only if they both relate to facts. Etymologically, data are published facts, while anecdotes are unpublished. Doesn't say a thing about underlying validity. Wakari07 (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• O...kay, the above debate over alternative medicine aside (no wonder it's under DS), this user's actively advocating for a topic in which they have a self-admitted COI, and isn't even pretending they're not; arguing over the legitimacy of the subject at AN/I, edit warring over the subject while this thread is open, claiming "you can not stop me". This appears to me to be exactly the type of user the Discretionary Sanctions were implemented to protect against, and as such, I have issued an indefinite topic ban from apitherapy, broadly construed (logged and notified). Swarm ♠ 06:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

New editor repeatedly inserting unsupported claims

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

---

Immodylor (talk · contribs) is repeatedly inserting unsupported claims into the infobox at Raid on Mount's Bay. He does not use edit summaries, and has not responded to messages on his talk page. I have advised him about WP:BRD, to no effect. I don't want to get shot down for edit warring, so would appreciate some outside eyes and input. Editor seems to have a surprisingly good knowledge of how to edit infoboxes and templates for a brand new account. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

revoke TPA for 2001:8003:5291:2c00:b40e:283:a1f5:6363

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

---

• 2001:8003:5291:2c00:b40e:283:a1f5:6363 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:2001:8003:5291:2C00:B40E:283:A1F5:6363 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

See talk page for IP 2001:8003:5291:2c00:b40e:283:a1f5:6363, who has just made threatening messages, such as coming back as a different IP to disrupt again, on talk and on edit summaries. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for letting us know - TNT^❤ 15:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Query regarding IBAN's

When in an IBAN, is the other person able to follow me all over the fucking shop? Cos I'm getting massively pissed off by this shit now, Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the incidents board. If you’re complaining about an incident, spell it out, with diffs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a query Darkness Shines (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. There is nothing in WP:IBAN that would prevent that. On the other hand, WP:HARASS may apply if it's obvious that someone is following you to multiple articles to cause distress.- MrX 🖋 19:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sound diffs forthcoming Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would remind you of your own IBAn, and the fact that it says "Limit IBAN vio reports to blatant violations." As well as saying much the same about harassment and stalking, If this is not blatant there would be a danger that it could boomerang, so be very sure there is some blatant examples of (whoever this user might be) following you to pages.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Fuck off Slater, this us bollocks Discussion on fakenews, surprise been on this article for months, but the giveaway is obviously following me, so sort this shite out Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That's an astonishingly poor way to begin. Might be worth rephrasing, if you haven't already torpedoed yourself. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Never been so pissed off you no longer give a shite i guess? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

About Wikipedia? No, I have not had that experience. You're free to do as you will, just trying to point out repercussions. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say this is not the clear cut kind of case you were told you needed. He may well be trying to wind you up, but frankly editing pages (for example) you are not even editing is not stalking, even if he thinks you are watching it. In the case of the others, well it's not exactly a lot is it, and not even the pages you are currently very active on (the last appears to have been 2 days ago, on one of the articles). The other you have not edited for a month. Sorry this looks like just the kind of spurious fishing for ban you were warned not to do.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

For everyone unaware, I have been trying to mediate this interaction ban via email for the past week. I had a soft agreement to not bring things to ANI without getting outside input as the last one did not go so well. I wish my advice had been heeded. So now, it needs to be discussed publicly before I give up on both of you. @Darkness Shines: I explicitly told you that you should avoid bringing things to ANI as your last report was not received well. I told you to give me the information of any violation and that I would report it for you if I believed a violation took place. Why did you ignore that? I did ask C. W. Gilmore to not edit any page that you have edited within the last 30 days, so that advice was also ignored; however, it isn't necessarily a violation of the IBAN (just stupid and ill-advised). If either one of you want to avoid being blocked again, I strongly suggest you let me continue mediating the both of you and that you both listen and dial it back quickly before you do something you can't recover from. I know both of you are passionate about editing, but this is not the way to go about it. Nihlus 20:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No, either he stops following me or fucking indef me, I do not need this shit Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Indef him then with this attitude ohh and.

Donald Trump on social media, No edits by Gilmore

Fake News Awards, No edits by Darkenss

Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present), no edits by Darnkess for over 30 days, then Gilmore edits, then Darkness edits.

Talk:1576 Cocoliztli epidemic, yep, gilmore did breach his agreement.

So not a lot here really.Slatersteven (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The way I read that first diff is: On the Trump page, Darkness refers to the Fake News Awards on the 18th. Gilmore edits the Fake News Awards on the 19th.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I agree that Gilmore is pushing it a bit. But it is a stretch to call this stalking. Yes Gilmore is playing silly buggers, and needs a warning. But by the same token this is Darkness fishing for a ban on Gilmore on some shaky grounds. In essence he is saying that Gilmnore cannot edit any pages he has any link due, not matter how tenuous.Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

By what standard is this phony "Fake News Awards" notable for inclusion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Note - I followed Volunteer Marek to that article [101] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No idea, I have not be party to, or following, the merger discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the thing, the merge discussion was on another page, that I know nothing about. It took me a while to even understand what everyone was talking about. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

While the phrasing of the report is poor, I find the diffs persuasive. It seems a pretty clear case of Gilmore following Darkness on multiple pages. For tolerably obvious reasons, I'm not going to place a block myself, but I think someone should. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: I'm not sure your trigger happy touch is needed at this time. Your previous blocks only served to drive this mess further than it needed to be. Nihlus 20:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Slater you are an idiot, I did a rm on that page last week, the persecution one, seriously learn to actually look at shit Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So the date of that edit?Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment @ Sarek, I stay off pages for 5days so as to avoid any interaction, if others from the IBAN show up, I finish what I'm doing and stay off that page for 5days. There are articles such as US politics, world news and events were are interest overlap, so I set the 5day rule to avoid interaction. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: I suggested that you stay off those pages for a month. Why do you think five days was a reasonable compromise? Nihlus 20:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nihlus: - I can look back 5days and be pretty sure I don't miss anything, 30dys on something like a Trump page is not manageable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: It's not unreasonable at all since there are tools for this. Nihlus 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Frankly Gilmore I am almost as unimpressed with you as I am with Darkness , you know full well you are pushing the envelope, and I have said this to you before. The moist likely result is that the pair of you will be indef. Trying to wind him up by sneaking "half violations" is not going to sit well, and we are not all so stupid as to not be aware of what you are doing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Again we go back to the only way to prevent this just being brought up once a week is a total ban on each user editing pages the other edits, yes it will create a race to claim pages. But that might cause less disruption then this constant bickering and needlaing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would only support this if it was limited to 30 or 60 days; however, something needs to be community enforced as they are not really listening to me. Nihlus 20:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not think a limited time offer will have any effect. But would give it a goSlatersteven (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It will allow them to edit a page that the other maybe edited a year ago. It will allow us to avoid wikilawyering. Nihlus 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) (uninvolved editor) Not sure what you're seeing Slater, but Talk:Donald Trump on social media and Talk:Fake News Awards are linked by a merge discussion and CW edited within 24 hours of DS; DS edited Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present) five days before CW; and CW edited Talk:1576 Cocoliztli epidemic also within 24 hours of DS, in the same discussion. If not direct I-ban violations, GW is very clearly testing the boundaries, and definitely following DS around to places where IIRC GW isn't usually active. ansh666 20:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And CW edited the Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present) a day before that [102]. Besides (as has been said) Gilmore has not been banned from editing pages, and if you look at this [103]I see a ton of pages Gilmore has not fetched up on. So this is not stalking.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ohh I see, sorry I misunderstood, I thought you meant it would only last that long. I agree there has to be a non grandfather clause. yep edited within the last 30 days seems fine.Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment There are multiple pages where all parties to the IBAN have edited, that's why I set the 5day rule for myself, to keep distance. It's because of overlapping interests and intersecting edits. Also, I can check 5dys with certainty. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a problem, you did fetch up on pages you have never edited before. To be fair you also did not edit a lot of pages he does.Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

We seem to overlap because of some of the editors we follow. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That is possible, which is why I did warn Darkenss to be careful before launching this ANI (and got told top fuck off for my trouble).Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't like me, that's grand but stop being a dick. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it is best if I do not respond to you anymore, as all you seem to do is react aggressively. I have no wish to be accused of badgering a user.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The OP here just talked himself off a 2-week block after a couple of days, and it's only taken a couple more days to pick up where he left off. If he won't listen to good advice from others, maybe that block should be reinstated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the constant abuse I have been subjected to for sustaining this ANI was not a good idea, yes it should be.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note I stay off whatever article or talking page is not clear for 5dys. If 5dys is not long enough then give us both the same time frame to work with and I will comply. If posting on a Talking page while the other is on the article is not allowed, then say so; I'm getting tired of being dragged to AN/I every week. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That is total bullshit. There is no time limit on how long you should avoid pages where your opponent has been active. The rule is simple: stop following DS around. You had an opportunity to demonstrate that DS's edits needed your attention and that argument was not accepted. An interaction ban means that interaction is banned. Stop looking at your opponent's contributions and talk page and do not edit pages where they have been active. Johnuniq (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually it is the truth, I followed Volunteer Marek to that Trump page and found it clear of any IBAN[104]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I've moved onto editing other areas due to the frustration of dealing with Gilmore. And now I seem to be running into some of the same issues of him following my contributions for seemingly unencyclopedic reasons. I admit I have assumed bad faith on one occasion, but interacting with this editor can be truly infuriating, especially after being borderline canvassed by him on Jefferson Davis Park. Honestly before I even saw this report today I was thinking of how I might get rid of the feeling that he's trying to crawl up into my asshole and set up shop. Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Gabriel, making fun of suicide is not a 'joke' I appreciate, it brings back too many memories. Please don't do it again. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suspect this illustrates a fundamental problem here; CWG appears to honestly believe that his wishes and beliefs have power over other writers, the rules of Wikipedia, and factual questions; the problems with DS and others are symptoms, not the root cause. This is not a problem likely to fix itself in a week of sulking. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's a couple problems there. I didn't make the joke, I posted onto another editors page referring back to their use of it. You make it incredibly hard to assume good faith when you show up in places you have no encyclopedic reason for being to throw your two cents into a conversation where your name was not even mentioned. Kindly fuck off. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

They should compromise in the state of Washington, that bastion of Confederateness: Leave the portrait of Jeff Davis, but paint a dress on him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Misogynist. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No. You must be unaware of the legend (true or not) that when the Union arrested him, he had been trying to evade capture by dressing as a woman. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No, and no. Its was just a poke at the way so many conversations connected with CWG get hijacked, For great social justice. All of your threads are belong to us. Anmccaff (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Look, jokes about suicide are not acceptable, even worse when they are made at another editor's expense [105] and picked up and repeated [106], even if my uncle had not committed suicide, it would still not be appropriate. And before you go saying it was just a joke, suicide by hammer is not [107] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Jokes aside, I see that you have in no way offered any sort of defense of the other conduct issues I brought up, but you seem to be doing a fine job hanging yourself on your owngetting yourself blocked. Did not intend hanging comment to be humorous but quickly saw that it could be taken that way, apologies. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Gonna have to agree with Gilmore here. Gabriel, that was incredibly uncalled for. I suggest you stop now or I will pursue sanctions for this. Don't joke about suicide. --Tarage (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that suicide is not something to joke about. I didn't. I did refer to another editor's joke about suicide when posting on their talk page, and that was perhaps off color. What I don't see is how Gilmore even became involved in me posting a barnstar to another editors page. It's tough to AGF there, which is why I decided to comment in the first place. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

off topic discussion
May you never, ever lose someone close to you from suicide. It hurts like hell. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Well I find your offhand assumption that I haven't to be pretty goddam offensive, but I do agree that it is incredibly painful. Gonna throw a hat on this as off topic. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Can we just block both of them and be done with it? Yes, their contributions may have been worth something in the past, but this has become a net drain of many administrators time, and we end up here every week. At some point, this has got to stop, and since it seems like both parties are too stubborn to figure out how badly they are behaving maybe we should have a break from both... --Tarage (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A fresh 2-week block for each might give them time to ponder the advice they've been given. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And the two of you can go do something use full for once Ya. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You continue to defy your IBAN. How useful is that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Both editors are banned from editing any page the other has edited within the last 30 days, any and all pages --Originally posted by Slatersteven but modified to be a suggestion rather than a topic header by Tarage (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I will be fine with that, however, something like that Trump thing could happen again as they pages are not connected, in fact I didn't know there was talk of merging until this AN/I came up. 30dys, clear on All pages (article and TP), can be done. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Quite frankly you are in no position to bargain right now. I suggest you stop. --Tarage (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage, that was not me bargaining. I was agreeing to it, sorry if it came off badly. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, the above section header was actually added by Slatersteven [108]. Lepricavark (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry is that not permitted?Slatersteven (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Think about readability for a second. 1. It doesn't even say who posted it. It's just a header. 2. The super bold text implies perhaps that an administrator has made it fact, rather than a suggestion. Either way, I've modified it so that it's less confusing. Feel free to fix it how you see fit, but just a section header is not a good way to make an argument. --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm working on learning how to look back 30dys on article and Talking Pages, with the hopes that going from 5dys to 30dys will be enough. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• (1) Click on "view history". (2) Click on "Edits by user". (3) Enter the username in the field provided, and submit. (4) All edits by that user on that page will be displayed, with the most recent on top. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and it looks like I have to do it for the article and TP separately. One question for you, Diannaa, is there a way to avoid something like the Trump article issue brought up? I had no idea what was happening on the other pages when I followed Marek to the one I commented on. As I never went to the other page, how was I to avoid this happening again? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand the question. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

He is being reported because he went to page A (which DS has never edited) and this is stalking because there is a discussion on page B about a merge. He is asking how he avoids editing pages that have not be edited by DS, but just mentioned by him elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The connection could have been discovered by investigating the merge proposal at the top of the article. However if this example was the only one in the other party's report it's unlikely sanctions would be the result, as the connection is a little tenuous. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore/Darkness Shines IBAN Revision

Per the above discussion and my own experience in trying to mediate the two, I recommend we as a community formally alter their current restriction.

Current

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

Proposed

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. Additionally, both users are prohibited from editing any page and its corresponding talk page if the other user has edited either within the last thirty (30) days. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

I don't think exceptions should be considered otherwise we will most likely end up back here soon. I consider this to be a last chance for both of them. Nihlus 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Nihlus 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose because this last chance business hasn't worked any of the previous times it has been applied. We're at the point where we need blocks to prevent further time being wasted on this. --Tarage (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Tarage: I would personally be against blocking them currently given my discussions with them (I have hope I can get through to them), but I wouldn't fight it if the community wished it. However, I would be against an administrator blocking them without community sanction. So, feel free to propose it if you believe that it is the best solution. Nihlus 23:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do just that. --Tarage (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support With the understanding that this is an absolute final chance. I know it is not my place, but if it were up to me if either of them breach this the offending party would get an IBAN (and yes that would include frivolous reporting), automatically no ANI notice or discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment ANIs like this one are a waste of resources and a drain on our community. I think we should add a requirement, that, if either user feels the other has violoated the IBAN, the user must first privately discuss the violation with an admin of the user’s choosing. If, upon review, the admin found that the complaint was non-frivolous, the admin would open an ANI on behalf of the reporting user. Billhpike (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah good luck with that. I brought up that very point with DS the last time this occurred and he told me he doesn't trust any of them. So there's that. --Tarage (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the 30-day clause, but how about they are banned from reporting each other? This is getting ridiculous. If there's a violation, then someone else will notice it. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: The administration of this would be intolerable or impossible, and the additional workload involved in making any edits for both editors would be, in my view, unacceptable. If editors can't manage freely roaming about the Wiki on their own, they don't belong here. Just from the thread above, I'm instantly of the opinion that Darkness Shines is too combative to remain here. CWG is less combative but I see some really hard to believe claims being stated, and I take the other discussants at their word that dealing with CWG is also impossible. I see this additional hurdle as something futile that'll be violated within days, bringing the aggrieved party crowing back to ANI claiming victory. I see no reason to reward one of these characters just because the other manages to slip up first. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support as an option. This would keep them out of each other's hair. (Of course, if either of them start to game the system by pre-emptive posting on articles just to claim them, then it's indef block for that editor.) And of course if this new version of the IBAN were to prove just as useless, then it's a three-month block for both of them, no appeals possible. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support and I would also add a clause about being banned from reporting each other at drama boards. They can report any issues to a trusted administrator and they can make a decision on it. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support with the added proviso (per Black Kite, Billhpike, and A lad insane) that neither editor can report the other for anything, but that they can notify an admin. If the admin declines to act, it's over. If this fails to resolve the conflict, I would support escalating blocks starting at six months duration, with no ability to appeal.- MrX 🖋 13:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support I can support this as a temporary fix, but I have to say I do not see this as a bilateral problem. One of the two parties here has been, shall I say, very difficult for everyone who has interacted with him to deal with. Most editors, like myself, have just stepped back and minimized their dealings with him. Some, such as DS, are not able to, as he is involved in the same areas day in and day out. Frankly, it may be better just to topic ban (post 1932 American politics) both for a limited time (6 months) and step back and see who is still standing after that. John from Idegon (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support with the inclusion of being banned from reporting each other on any noticeboard. ansh666 20:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as impossible to enforce and easy to break unintentionally. This would be a even bigger mess than the current one. Imagine if this was on a highly active page? They could reasonably be expected to have no clue they broke this IBAN and then the other uses it to get them block. No, too complex and the poor admin who actually has to enforce it will have any enforcement action overturned within 72 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly right, and I am glad someone else has hit on the same thing that I discussed above. At some point, ratcheting up the complexity of sanctions is not the answer. Sure, you'll get the block you're expecting at some point, but it won't be for the reason you supported the upgraded sanction. What I find even more astounding is the argument that this should be unappealable, or that blocks handed out under this sanction should be unappealable. A narrow ANI discussion cannot change the rules applying to UTRS or the Arbitration Committee, nor can it make a final determination as to its own validity. If this sanction passes, I would not only expect, but I would encourage either or both to go to the Arbitration Committee immediately to have it overturned as unworkable (though it is also pretty likely that one or both would also draw sitebans). Just issue blocks and let them plead for the Standard Offer in six months. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support and also support neither side reporting violations except privately to an admin. If either party doesn't trust admins, well tough cookies since we got here largely because of their behaviour and in addition, no action is likely without either an admin acting unilaterally or a discussion in which a fair few admins participate. I'm not as convinced that there is definite evidence of stalking here. But I have seen enough to know neither side seems able to properly respect the i-ban e.g. completely ignore the other editor as if they and anything they said or did doesn't exist. This seems to be the last chance to make it work before we end up with something like the proposal below. I think I said a few days ago I hoped to never see anything about either editor on ANI. However I didn't expect this would actually be the case and sure enough we're here. 04:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm becoming more convinced that iBans and Topic Bans may cause more disruption to the project than they resolve. They also appear to be a form of censorship. Perhaps "disruption" needs to be better defined so we can focus more on a collegial environment instead of grade school. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore/Darkness Shines Indefinite Block

Look at the above sections. Look at the absolute mess it is. We have two editors who, for whatever reason, are incapable of leaving things well enough alone. Look at their block logs. Look at how much time and energy has been wasted on this. Time that could be spent actually building an encyclopedia. Between Gilmore's toeing of the line at every chance he can get and DS's inability to be civil for more than 5 seconds, we have a net loss to the project. Perhaps removing one would solve the problem, but they are both so stubborn that it doesn't matter anymore. It's time for this to stop. We can amend IBAN restrictions till we're blue in the face. Just end it. Block them both until they understand.

• Support as proposer. --Tarage (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough. Lepricavark (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm at the line but not ready to cross it. I am willing to give them one final chance. Nihlus 00:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support mostly per my comments in opposition to the IBAN revision. Between the combativeness and incivility of DS and the non-credible claims of CWG, there's no reason to reward either of these people with what'll be taken as a victory. Indef them both and the victory is Wikipedia's. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support I get that I'm a newb here but these two editors are, at least as far as these ongoing disputes go, working at cross purpose to the encyclopedia. Set these two asses to grind corn, as my papa used to say. Gabriel syme (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This sounds most unhygienic. EEng 06:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait what? I'm trying to back out of a place in no way belong. Is it not good practice to strike remarks that you find to be mistakes? Gabriel syme (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't take anything EEng says seriously. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm deadly serious. Suppose Gabe here offered you some home-made cornbread. Would you eat it? Be honest. EEng 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok I missed the joke yall can be delightfully infuriating! You've reduced me to using this abhorrent symbol ;-) Gabriel syme (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• I expect that you mean well, but that kind of remark is not helpful. These editors have both contributed a great deal to Wikipedia over the years, and while I believe the indefs are necessary at this point, there is no need to insult them on the way out. Lepricavark (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That is noted, struck, and thanks for your cooler head than mine taking a hand in this dispute. Uh, it's apparent to me that I'm really not ready to be involved in discussions here, I'd just had a real difficult time with one of the involved editors. Stepping off this now as yall seem to have things well in hand. Gabriel syme (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is becoming ridiculous. !dave 08:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support two-month blocks for each. Although they both have lengthy block logs, I don't think we've reached the indef point for either editor. I think an unappealable two-month vacation for each will help each of them decide whether Wikipedia is a project they value enough to edit constructively and civilly and while acting within its guidelines and their editing restrictions. If either or them continue stalking or disruptive or uncivil editing/behavior after the two-month block, then that editor gets indeffed. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support a long block for both, per "what part of IBAN did you not understand?", relentless gaming and sniping - and it's time to find a proper redirect target for WP:ENOUGHALREADY. Couple of months is good. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The discussion above does not seem to indicate DS is breaching the IBAN. In fact, the discussion seems to indicate he has a reasonable complaint. The solution isn't "both sides bad" if there is merit to the complaint. DS appears angry but thats understandandable considering that the people discussing it are also just as perturbed. --DHeyward (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose DS is certainly wrong to have allowed himself to be provoked and overreacted as he has. However, this is by no means a case of "both as bad as each other". The only time I seem to ever see Gilmore's name is in the context of stirring up trouble and the same cannot be said for DS, who is a valuable contributor until his short fuse burns out. He should get himself a longer fuse, and not rise to provocation so easily in future, but treating this as two people equally to blame is not correct. -- Begoon 09:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose –This will be purely punitive and plain cool down block against policy. There's not even clear evidence that one of them has breached the topic ban, talk less of all of them. If there's, then the appropriate sanction should apply to the breaching party. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Ammarpad: Have you assessed the long term disruption caused by these two users in the past? !dave 10:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• @My name is not dave: Blocking is used to stop ongoing or prevent imminent disruption not past disruption which is not even laid out here clearly. I actually never crossed path with either but my thought was clear; they are under active IBAN, if one party breaches it, sanction the party. But to block them under vague term "that till they understand" is not the right thing here. Do you have evidence of any active disruption that blocking both indefinitely will prevent? –Ammarpad (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - We have been down this road far too many times; I appreciate some editors' willingness to offer these two (another) chance. There comes a time, however, when you must cut your losses, knowing you lived up to your pledge of good-faith and did the best you could.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Just how many times had DS had blocks that have been overturned (including Indefs)? If DS is blocked and then reinstated Gilmore has to be as well, DS cannot learn that all he has to do to get another user blocked indefinably is just to get himself a block he knows will be over turned.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Give the updated IBAN proposed above a chance. If that doesn't work, then fine. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose overreaction. However it does appear from above that Gilmore is not able to stop following DS and is likely headed for an indef. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of giving the previous revision a chance. If that fails, then sure. (hope I'm not close-paraphrasing Black Kite!) ansh666 20:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a resolution that prevents at least one serious content-contributor from seriously contributing content. From what I've glanced at, DS's complaint has merit. If you disagree, it would be easy to ignore it too. No one is forced to spend time here. (At the same time, I'd advise you not to insult editors who, previously, hadn't been part of anything annoying, DS. There are better ways of expressing the strength of your frustration, and written dialogue at least gives us a better chance of waiting to respond until we've regained our cool (unless duty calls, of course)). I guess I wouldn't oppose a more immersive or extensive interaction ban here, but to block them won't improve the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I favor editor retention and quite frankly, if our community has gotten to the point that we have to indef block 2 editors because they don't like each other, we need to dig deeper into the cause rather than focus only on the effect. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

New editor Catfurball and article move

User:Catfurball moved the Bariloche article to San Carlos de Bariloche without explanation or consensus. Bariloche is the WP:COMMONNAME, San Carlos de Bariloche is the formal name. I set up a discussion topic on the talk page, waited a day with no response, so I moved it back to the original. My move brought it back to the article title that it was moved to in 2015. Catfurball moved the article yet again to San Carlos de Bariloche. So I asked them on their talk page to please discuss on the article talk page. The user then removed my comment and continued editing. I noticed they did this with another editor earlier here. As Catfurball does not seem interested in discussing the topic, what can be done? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bahooka: I've moved back the article and move protected it. Catfurball needs to read and follow Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves before they are blocked for move warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, NeilN. Bahooka (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Important note (reverting good-faith admin close). Catfurball's 2,100 edits are genuinely problematical across the board: [109]. They are completely edit-summary-free, and also completely citation-free, even though they are important substantive changes to existing text. The editor also removes important messages from their talkpage rather than responding to them: [110]. I'm thinking this person needs to respond, cite, and explain, or they may need one of those qualm-free blocks NeilN is famous for. I would like some more investigation of, and opinions on, their edits please. Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've dropped them a note asking them to respond here. I don't particularly like doing these kinds of blocks but if editors don't communicate and collaborate with each other we might as well turn into the new Knol. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The Banner and editing warring

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

---

The user The Banner has started numerous edit wars with me in the past, and is now doing it again. The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) undid numerous edits I made to the German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement page, one of which was a request for information in a sentence to be cited with reliable information. If some action could be taken so that he could not continue this behavior I would appreciate it. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The edit history of George Tiller and German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement show me that if there is or was someone causing an edit war, it's you... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, Thegoodmanisamazing should know better already after the two blocks he drew over George Tiller this month alone. My only complaint about The Banner's handling is in describing a {{citation needed}} tagging as "disruptive editing" and giving a {{uw-disruptive1}} warning for adding it. The concern with the tag is pretty evidently whether a qualitative statement requires sourcing, and I can understand that concern. That said, Thegoodmanisamazing should have gone to the talk page. I think no action is required at present, but Thegoodmanisamazing should be very, very clear that dueling edit summaries are not discussion: You have to go to the talk page rather than keep reverting. That something you disagree with is on the live page in the meantime is something you have to learn to live with. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you recommend I do in order to ensure that the first section of German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement is not only fair and unbiased, but cites sources as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If there's a dispute between you and another editor over content, you need to start a talk page discussion and work everything out and come up with a revision that you both agree with - then you can edit the article and modify it to reflect the censensus reached. What you do not want to do is revert other editors in a back-and-fourth pattern (which... is edit warring). Resolve things by following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and work things out peacefully with others. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Alexb102072

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

---

• Alexb102072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Discussion among other editors on Alexb102072's talk page
• The latest attempt at communication

Alexb102072 is an editor who's been here for quite a while. Their first edit was made in November 2006, and they have accumulated 10,275 edits. [111] Their work can best be described as WikiGnoming. They tend to make a few small changes per edit to each article they work on, and then do anywhere from 1 to a dozen (sometimes more) edits on that article. (There's nothing wrong with working that way, I often do it myself.)

The problems with Alexb102072 are twofold.

First, their editing often includes overlinking of common words, changes of grammar which make the article more awkward to read and less fluid, and their writing choices often feel like high school-level composition. They been told that all these things are a problem, in fact there are at least 12 comments or warnings from other editors on Alexb102072's talk page. None of these have been the least bit effective in changing the editor's way of working.

The second problem lies in the fact that Alexb102072 has never responded to any comment left on their talk page. They have, in fact, never once edited that page. [112] It is impossible to collaborate with an editor who will not talk to other editors.

A few days ago, I began to engage the other editors who had left comments and warnings on Alexb's talk page. The discussion took place on the talk page itself, so that everything was completely transparent, and Alexb could see what was being said. (see link above) During the discussion, Alexb was urged to respond to the problems other editors were having with their editing, but Alexb has yet to do so, nor have they changed their editing in any way.

The consensus among the editors in discussion is that Alexb102072 needs a wake-up call. Somehow, we have to get his attention, so that we can explain the problems and get them to change - or, at the very least, get an explanation. Whether that means a strongly worded warning from an admin, or a short attention-getting block, we need to get through to Alexb that they must be willing to communicate with other editors in order to continue to edit here.

I don't think anyone in the discussion doubts Alexb's good faith, and that they are indeed trying to improve the encyclopedia, so this is not vandalism we're talking about. It's possible that there's a CIR issue, but it's impossible to tell without being able to discuss things with him.

Would an admin be willing to try to jump-start the dialogue by getting Alexb's attention in some way? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexb102072 has been notified. [113]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Jeez. This is someone who has only edited in mainspace (except once in template space and a handful of times in portal space). In other words, never once in any talk spaces. Ever. Since 2006. Does Alexb even communicate in edit summaries? Or is the 75% with edit summaries just automated or canned edit summaries?

Normally, I'd be inclined not to do anything, but this editor's actions have pretty clearly become problematic, especially as his or her contribs have ramped up in the last couple years. Most years Alexb had less than 500, but last year had over 5000, and with nearly 300 this month Alexb is on track to match or pass that this year. Given Alexb is pretty active, I think a block would get his or her attention. I just hope it elicits a response. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing a "live" edit summary. A quick check seems to indicate that they're all "canned". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, looks like you're right. I just skimmed through the last couple thousand edits (back to about August 1). The only things popping up in the edit summary field are section headings. I think that gives independent grounds for sanctioning: Never using edit summaries. That said I can't recall the last time I've heard of someone being sanctioned for not using edit summaries... but yeah, something should be done here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just had to fix one of their edits. They are, simply put, not competent to edit Wikipedia. Their grammar fixes are wrong more often than not and what edits they do make that are acceptable are mostly unnecessary and not really contributory. This user appears to take up much more time and waste than they're worth. Time to throw them out, or at least force them to communicate with an indefinite block and strong message on their talk page to force them into communication. However considering how long they've been here, I don't hold out any hope that they're redeemable. If they haven't managed to figure out basic grammar by now, they're a lost cause. Canterbury Tail talk 23:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Might be worth trying a temporary block, a week or so. Such an experiment's results could provide some clues on how to proceed. 79.43.127.185 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with 79.43.127.185. These changes have been going on for a considerable time and comments and warnings on their Talk page have been ignored for years. A much longer block is needed in the hope they might see sense. David J Johnson (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow. Fixing a spelling error that any spell checker would get and putting a hyphen (???) in "prime minister". Here's a weird overlink within a quotation, though my real concern is correcting the grammar of the quotation; was there an "a" in the original? Did Alexb check, or just correct it? Without an edit summary, we have no clue, and it needs to be rechecked. I think BMK was being a bit too charitable in calling Alexb's contribs "wikignoming". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of information, there have been to further "contributions" from this person since this thread started. This just underlines their contempt, or ignorance, for Wikipedia conventions. A long block is needed. David J Johnson (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: Length of block is unimportant; eliciting a response is, if possible. Probably, there will not be any, but the attempt should be made, I believe. 79.43.127.185 (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think many of us admins believe in "attention-getting blocks". I could be wrong. We do, however, block for being incommunicado, in serious cases, and of course for disruption/incompetence--but we'd need more diffs for such a drastic measure. I haven't checked their talk page, but the old way of leaving templates of increasing levels for disruption, followed by an AIV report, is one way of building up to a block, and that may be less cumbersome than building a case via diffs. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been known to use them when someone is being disruptive and not paying any attention to warnings. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"I've been known to use them""--weasel words, JzG! Yes, I know some admins have placed those; I find it hard to do that. In this case I can see a block for being incommunicado as warranted and I'm not quibbling with NeilN's block. It's just that I did see a couple of good edits in there and I was hoping maybe they'd listen if I left a somewhat urgent note. Didn't help, apparently. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• It would be easiest to say all their edits are bad, but that is not true--I can't, in all good conscience, drop a block by myself after looking at a dozen edits. Perhaps another admin feels differently; I certainly see the problems... Drmies (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a blatant disregard to the community, the user has been editing today. I support an indef block and be done with it, if they decide they want to continue editing, they can request an un-block and go from there. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

FlightTime, I assume you're not saying that I am blatantly disregarding the community. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Absoultly not, you assume correctly, my comment is only in regards to the user being discussed. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm about to go to bed here in the UK, but I have to report that there have been further totally unnecessary edits and overlinking in the past few minutes. How long have responsible editors have to put-up with this disregard to warnings and Wikipedia conventions? David J Johnson (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I would describe the dispute as one over an editor persistently making poor quality edits who additionally never uses edit summaries, never responds to talk page requests, and won't come to ANI. Like, I know it's partly an attention-getting block request, but it's also a WP:CIR problem. That said, to the other participants in this thread, how about assembling a stack of diffs of problematic edits spanning more than the last couple weeks, just to show there is a pattern of low-quality editing such that Alexb can be said to be a net negative. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I know, Mendaliv, there's plenty of problems here--what I like about ANI is the opportunity to discuss these things with other admins and editors and get their opinions; NeilN didn't have the qualms I had, and that's fine. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. What's with the uptick in reports about veteran editors not communicating? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to talk about that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Oh, shi..... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, we noticed during the GamerGate bullshit that long-dormant accounts would pop up with pro-Gamergate edits, so this may be the same. Whether it's meatpuppetry or sale of accounts is probably hard to investigate. Guy (Help!) 01:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Sock found

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

---

They just will never get this method will never work. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Points taken away for the not-clever title. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Neil How about "Tag 'em and bag 'em"? Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You can do better. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

NorthBySouthBaranof

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

---

Will an uninvolved admin or committee member please look into the behavior of User: NorthBySouthBaranof? This user has been harassing and intimidating me lately under the guise of enforcing policy.

On January 17, 2018, I edited a page that NorthBySouthBaranof immediately reverted. This same user then posted a vague warning on my talk page, telling me to stop adding "unreferenced or poorly referenced information…to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons." (diff) I then explained to this user the reasons why I believe my original edit is not a violation of that policy. (user's talk page) I then started a talk page discussion to get consensus on whether my edit should be restored. (article talk page) NorthBySouthBaranof then warned me that if I “persist[ed] in reinserting the material contrary to policy,” administrative sanctions would be requested, even though I had not tried to restore the edit. In fact, I assured this user that I would not restore my original edit unless and until consensus in favor of such was established on the article's talk page. (user's talk page) Despite this, NorthBySouthBaranof followed up by repeating their warnings of administrative sanctions twice—once on their own talk page, and once on the article's talk page—even though to this day, I have still not restored the edit. There was no cause for this user to keep hounding me with warnings.

Eventually, NorthBySouthBaranof submitted a request for enforcement against me, anyway, but only after I had edited another page that wasn't a BLP (or recently-deceased person). It was merely a list article, and even then, my edit followed this user's guidelines for referencing information. (diff) And when this user reverted that edit, they used profanity against me to explain the revert. (revision history, diff) Then, this user exaggerated the extent to which I allegedly ran afoul of policy. (accusation) Compare that with what really happened. Finally, this user claimed that I was deserving of sanctions partly because I made honest arguments on a talk page as to why I believe my original edit is not a violation of policy. (accusation) Just expressing honest beliefs on a talk page is not grounds for sanctions.

If anything, NorthBySouthBaranof should be sanctioned, for harassment, to the full extent of Wikipedia's policies. As I have shown, this person has clearly demonstrated harassing behavior against me in the last few days. Thank you. Greggens (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC) (Edited by Greggens (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC))

• Greggens, please change your links into actual WP:DIFFs, rather than page links, so we can see the edits involved. If you don't know how to make a WP:DIFF, read that link, or just click the word "diff" or "prev" on the edit you want to report. Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. I've also clarified which references are actual diffs and which ones are other types of refs. Greggens (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No your first "diff" is still not a diff. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note to administrators and others: This thread seems to be part of the OP's WP:FORUMSHOPPING. He was sanctioned at WP:AE just 24 hours ago, and he filed an appeal of it at WP:AE ([114]), at the exact same time as he opened this ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• NeilN closed this WP:AE with Greggens topic banned for one month from all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Also topic banned for six months from topics involving Elizabeth Warren, broadly construed. There is an appeal here. This ANI report is a topic ban violation. I suggest that it be closed with a strong warning to the OP on the basis that many people seem to have trouble understanding what a topic ban means. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have read WP:TBAN, and yet I fail to see how this ANI report violates any topic ban, let alone the one NeilN is attempting to impose on me. WP:TBAN means that any given subject, and anything closely related to that subject, are off-limits. ANI reports are for filing complaints about another user's behavior, that's all. They have nothing to do with the content of Wikipedia, so how can they be part of any ban? Greggens (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree this thread is a violation of his topic ban, and it is also a gross multi-pronged violation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Greggens should either withdraw this thread or risk being blocked for violating both of those. Softlavender (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not forum-shopping to address separate issues on separate forums (see WP:FORUMSHOPPING). One forum is being used to appeal sanctions. The other is being used to complain about a user's behavior. If this is the wrong forum for reporting abuse, then I was genuinely mistaken, and I apologize. In that case, please point me to the correct forum for reporting user misbehavior. Greggens (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This report is essentially an extended whine accusing me of a) properly viewing this editor's edits as policy-violating; b) properly warning this editor that his edits were objectionable because they violated policies; c) reverting this editor's policy-violating edits; d) discussing this editor's policy-violating edits on the article talk page; and e) properly reporting this editor's policy-violating edits through the appropriate enforcement channels. To all of that, I plead guilty. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

False Allegations by Unscintillating

User:Unscintillating has repeatedly disrupted Afd discussions to accuse me of outing another editor. The most recent accusation occurs here: [115] This comes after I left a message on his talk page asking him to stop making such accusations, which he completely ignored, here [116]. Other times he made the same allegations are: [117] [118] [119] and [120] Besides the fact the allegations are false, deletion discussions are not the proper venue to bring such claims.

The outing allegation actually originates from User:Alansohn here: [121] [122] & [123] I pointed out the obvious reason I could not possibly have outed Alansohn [124], Alansohn has not made that claim again, but Unscintillating continues to do so. The reason Alansohn could not have been outed by me is because he clearly stated on his talk page his name (as if you couldn't have guessed) and town where he lives here [125], which only now has been removed (you can check the deletion log on that).

As per Wikipedia:Harassment, "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." Based on this I believe Unscintillating is actually engaging in harassment himself. Also looking at his edit history over the past week, he has almost exclusively only participated in discussions that I have which borderlines on WP:STALKING--Rusf10 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Unscintillating: I don't think these outing accusations are valid. In fact, they seem rather bizarre. WP:OUTING is meant to prevent and protect against the accidental or intentional leaking of personal information that a person does not want on-wiki. It was almost comical for Alan to warn someone for outing when they literally referred to him by the name provided by his own username, and stranger still for you to be citing such a warning in an unrelated forum, in order to generally discredit the user who was incorrectly warned to begin with. Look, if you have a case to make that this user actually has some sort of "anti-New Jersey" bias, now's the time to make it. But otherwise the personal commentary against them is, obviously, going to have to stop. Swarm ♠ 06:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm:Opps, I think you just outed alansohn now (don't ever use his first name). But seriously, can it be made clear to Unscintillating that if he does this just one more time, there is going to be consequences. If nothing else, it is completely disruptive.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

• It was high-time someone reported Unscintillating for his behavior at AFD because he is an absolute time-sink. Whenever his odd assessments are wrong (which is often) he makes non-sequitar or extraneous arguments simply for the sake of arguing. Editors like Bearcat have tried to explain the proper approach to him but he has a bad case of WP:IDHT. Here are some AFDs that display his behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the list goes on. But the anatagonizing does not end there; after the AFDs are closed not in his favor (which, again, is far too often) he'll usually question the competence of admins at their talk page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: There is a procedure to follow in the case of outing. It does not involve bringing it up repeatedly at AFD. This has already been explained to you, here among other places. I presume here that your motivations are good, but for the avoidance of doubt, I am asking you now to engage with the functionaries if you think someone is engage in malicious outing, and to stop making off-topic accusations about the same during deletion discussions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

• Lankiveil, In the terms used by WP:OUTING, an editor's "legal name" is "Personal information".  I provided a diff to the functionary list in December, with a 2016 edit comment that included the word "redact".  So even though they knew that the editor's personal name was protected by OUTING, they didn't take action, because the information Rusf10 posted to Teaneck, NJ in December was sourced public information, not an alleged personal name of a Wikipedia editor.
  Nonetheless, Rusf10 has used the alleged personal name in multiple other edits, and retains one such instance openly on [his/her talk page even now].  He/she generally is opposed to mayors and lower offices being used in Wikipedia articles, so why does he/she make an isolated exception for Teaneck, with a name that coincidentally matches the alleged name he/she is posting?  And then on 11 January he/she AfDs an article that discusses Gallucci, "a former township councilman in Teaneck, New Jersey".  And, "The case promised to affect how the law views anonymous Internet postings and the liability and obligations of companies who facilitate those postings." 
  As for my !vote, bad faith nominations are on-topic as per WP:DGFA.
  Rusf10 claims that I've made "false allegations" in my !vote, but so far he/she only disputes one specific set of details, which he/she is defending by conflating the issue of his target's city of residence with his target's alleged personal name.  IMO, hyperbole is common in Rusf10's rebuttals.  This ANI post is an attempt to disenfranchise my AfD !vote, a !vote which seeks to improve the quality of AfD nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I didn't see that message to the functionaries list, but if you can contact me privately by email with the subject line of that email I'll look into it for you. Dealing with outing is serious, I agree. But AFD is not the place to do it; it is akin to complaining to a library clerk that your house is on fire. If the fire department have concluded that your house is not on fire, then the guy checking books out at the library is unlikely to be able to assist you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

@Unscintillating: You just don't get it do you? Multiple uninvolved people (not just myself) have now told you there was no outing. It is impossible to out an editor's name when he uses his real name as his username. How many more people have to tell you this? Nearly all of your AfD votes (including those in discussions I have no involvement with) are non-sequiturs that are completely irrelevant to the discussion. In addition to the examples that User:TheGracefulSlick posted here are some discussions where you have disrupted the process with irrelevant comments, including your favorite "this !vote is disputed" (every singles time someone disagrees with you) and nothing can be deleted because WP:ATD prevails: [126] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turing College, Kent [127] [128] [129] That's just a sampling, I could keep going. And how about this one where you are arguing with a admin about your bizarre view that nothing can be deleted due to WP:ATD: [130] Maybe the only solution is to ban you from commenting at AfD. I don't know.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

And please learn to archive your talk page. It's longer than the only talk page visible from space. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Can someone go ahead and remove Unscintillating's comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Street Co-op? Nothing he posted is relevant to the discussion. I'd go ahead and remove it, but I think it would be done better by an uninvolved admin.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Every time I see Unscintillating around he's wikilawyering endlessly, antagonising people, and incorrectly accusing them of all sorts of things. I was the target of his harassment campaigns for a while; back then the issue was whether or not you should go back and strike through peoples' votes on closed AfDs if it later turns out they were a sock. Most people thought that was a bad idea, but he got so upset over being told to stop it that he spent the next year accusing me of "undermining and sabotaging" the banning policy, bringing the issue up in a lot of unrelated places. Much the same as he's doing with Rusf10 now. This nonsense, and these two threads are typical of his antics. Elsewhere, he got so upset over the Wikipedia:Article_Incubator getting shut down despite Unscintillating's bizarre attempts to reanimate its corpse that he went to ANI to call User:Beeblebrox, then an arbitrator, "objectively delusional" and demanding he be removed from the (nonexistent) "oversight committee". Now he's hanging around AfD making a lot of "wrong venue" and "procedural keep" votes on perfectly legitimate nominations, wrongly claiming they're invalid in some way, and only to annoy the nominators. He's been carrying on like this since he registered here; the only thing that changes is the topic he's wikilawyering about and the target of his harassment. I support a topic ban from XfD on the grounds that competence is required and trolls most certainly are not. Reyk _YO! 19:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from XfD - Mainly per my above comment. If that, and Reyk's even more revealing evidence, isn't enough, I can also dig through Unscintillating's AFD contributions to find the comment where he stated anyone who agrees with Bearcat, a highly respected contributor to AFDs, suffer from a "personality disorder". Unscintillating tactics at AFD range from harassing well-informed editors to "procedural keep" and "wrong venue" !votes which never stick; I am on the verge of proposing a CIR block but we will give this a try first.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• @TheGracefulSlick: If the Bearcat comment was from the last year or so, I'd like to see a diff please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I am not very graceful and only a little bit slick, but I think I can help you out @NeilN: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_A._Nulman That's from just over three weeks ago. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - Concur with Reyk above that Unscintillating has some kind of problem and it may be competency related - hard to believe it is willful trolling, perhaps an issue with logic/fairness/rules. After marginal edit warring themselves at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Second effort for a nutshell they were determined to convict only Rhododendrites of it despite it being pointed out that they had both made two countable reverts and had equivalent behavior. And they would not let it go and even brought it up again in a subsequent section. Not sure what all the history is here but that encounter was enough to convince me that there was some kind of fundamental problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Edited 23:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• As an active AfD closer, I agree that many of Unscintillating's contributions there are unhelpful at best and frequently hostile as per Slick and Reyk, but most seem to be in good faith. I'm still neutral on a total XfD ban, but I can be convinced either way. ansh666 20:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, there's this argument where he's clearly playing "I know you are but what am I?". It's a little while ago now but it definitely shows his habit of trying to infuriate other AfD participants. Reyk _YO! 20:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I've seen enough of Unscintillating's AfD contributions from my normal activity. What I want to see is their response to this criticism (about general AfD contributions). I'm pretty sure what I know it'll be, but just in case. ansh666 20:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666:I know you're trying to be neutral here to be fair to everyone, but how can an edit like this [131] possibly have been made in good faith?--Rusf10 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That's cute, especially "The nominator has gotten an editor from a topic related to New Jersey indeffed for being an AfD meatpuppet", but I think the question is whether this is more pervasive than one instance... Which it does sound like. Fresh examples would be helpful. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

What Unscintillating was referring to was this [132] There was clear meat/sockpupperty and I simply reported it, so I don't see what the issue was. Of course, Unscintillating attempted to take the SPI way off course by attacking me, those comments were deleted, but can be seen here [133]--Rusf10 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• It is unsurprising to me to see this report. We haven’t butted heads in a long time, but it is clear to me that nothing has changed. This is a user who, when they have no real argument or their points have been refuted, will change their arguemtnt to something new whether it makes any sense or not. The day of the radical inclusionist is long over, people who still behave like this need a topic ban at the very least. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic banning Unscintillating from all deletion discussions and processes, broadly construed (including voting at AfD, commenting in AfDs, adding prods, removing prods, any CSD work, replying in policy discussions at WP:VPP that concern deletion policy, etc). This has been a long-term problem. Unscintillating somehow combines misunderstanding policy with aggressive wikilawyering, making this editor an unpleasant time sink in this topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from XfD; the comment about editors suffering from personality challenges at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Nulman is beyond the pale. WP:CIR issues are also apparent in the editor's AfD contributions; please see sample: "Groundless discounting of a source". There's distinct lack of a learning curve, with the same issues being discussed with them year over year, as can be seen here: "Bloomberg News vs S&P Market Intelligence". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a deletion topic ban in light of NeilN's final warning below. In light of what's been discussed above, Unscintillating is at the end of his or her rope and is not long for this project. I'm all for hastening this process, and I think a deletion topic ban will just slow the inevitable and provide more wiggle room for wikilawyering and driving off other editors. When the bull has already rampaged through the china shop, there's no sense in risking life and limb trying to lasso it while it's still in there. Set up a line of pikes and the bull will probably come charging out into them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support blanket deletion process topic ban in the event the standards laid out by NeilN are followed. Even if they manage to not hit those tripwires, they still need to stop their specious and tendentious AfD activity. In the Gallucci case AfD Rusf10 mentions above, they informed me I was "supporting outing" by contributing a Delete !vote and they have rather bizarrely taken to using WP:DGFA as a Keep rationale with no reasoning (here and here) They have in the past similarly demanded a WP:BEFORE or WP:ATD analysis from nominators. Its clear that any time they use a policy or guideline shortcut it's merely an attempt to disrupt the discussion and not an honest attempt at achieving a consensus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Just to clarify, did you mean "in the event the standards [...] are not followed"? Because if the standards are not met the next step is already spelled out as a block. In other words are you supporting an immediate topic ban? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: the second possibility: and immediate and indefinite topic ban whatever the outcome of their compliance with the conditions spelled out below. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Hopefully the below will sort out the major issues. I would however suggest that bullet point 2 apply anywhere on the project, rather than just "deletion discussions". AfD is not the only place the editor has done this. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support XFD topic ban (A/R/F/CFD and prods)- The continuous outing claims at various AFDs honestly make no sense at all .... The wikilawyering thing has been an issue for as long as I can remember! - Unscintillating is correct and we're all wrong or atleast that's the impression I've got with gim, Anyway he's just one huge timesink to the AFD process and is obviously more of a hindrance than of help, AFD's pretty much better off without him and his constant wikilawyering. –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Also I also support the block stuff below regardless of what happens above. –Davey2010^Talk 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support deletion-related topic ban. Based on this thread and what I've seen over the years, Unscintillating adds more heat than light to deletion discussions, seemingly more interested in wikilawyering, gaming, ad hominem, and rhetorical time sinks than applying principles that have very broad consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support for AfD ban. Not that this should surprise anyone, but I just want to make my position clear. Unscintillating almost never adds anything of value to an AfD discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support for AFD/XFD topic-ban.I can pull out a bunch of diffs at ease and he is one of the most troublesome and disruptive wikilawyers, I've ever seen.I've slowly come to appreciate Drmies' advice to stonewall him but a TBan is surely better.Winged Blades^Godric 05:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support AFD/XFD topic ban. This disruptive behavior has gone on far too long and the repeated ugly attacks on other editors seal the deal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POT. The OP seems to be engaged in a vexatious deletion spree and his vision seems to be that, instead of having a series of stubs about public parks, we should instead have a series of AFD pages filled with rancour and wikilawyering. This would be not an improvement and there's no consensus for it – see Webb Mountain Park, for example. This activity is unproductive and could be avoided by following the good advice at WP:BEFORE which encourages us to seek alternatives to deletion. That's long-standing policy and so it is good that we are reminded of it when the occasion arises. Unscintillating is therefore right to do so. If there is a tiresome, repetitive aspect to this then this arises from the tiresome and repetitive nature of the nominations. If editors tax our patience with excessive zeal then they should be advised and then restrained. That's what's happening to TenPoundHammer above and this case seems quite similar. Andrew D. (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Specific note to Unscintillating

Unscintillating, irrespective of what the community decides above, the following will result in a block from me or another admin:

• Any further accusations of outing anywhere on the project. If you think outing has occurred, email Arbcom.
• Personally attacking or disparaging another editor in deletion discussions or discussions about deletions. This is not supposed to occur anywhere on the project but leeway is given for the minor day to day stuff. However you've reached the end of your rope.
• Sidetracking discussions like this. If you think an editor hasn't performed a WP:BEFORE you are welcome to add a normal deletion !vote with diffs showing sources the nominator should have found. If a specific editor is consistently nominating articles that obviously should be kept then open a thread here and let the community decide what to do.

In short, cut out the disruption, and comment on the deletion nomination, not the nominator. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Does this qualify as a violation?[134]--Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rusf10: The first two comments in response to your !vote seem to be valid and then we get into sidetracked territory. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:- Right, I was only referring to that diff though since it was the only one posted after your notice above. In other words, he was trying again to engage me in an irrelevant discussion there after he should have seen your notice.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rusf10: I've dropped a note on their page linking to this subsection. It may be a good idea to disengage with Unscintillating for about a day or so to let things cool down and see how the above discussion plays out. If there is consensus for a deletion discussion ban then point three becomes moot. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll see what happens.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate image in article

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

---

There is an enormous NSFW image at the bottom of the article on 1928 Olympian Jules Ladoumègue. I don’t know how to fix it - could someone help? If this is the wrong place for this, please let me know. Thanks. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't figure out the specific problem, but it came about via this edit by Magioladitis, so I have reverted the edit, which is all I can think of to do for now. That has removed the image. Softlavender (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked the miscreant, protected the template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Can you hide those revisions per WP:BEANS and the nature of the edits? Nihlus 06:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

RD3'd. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Quick sock block

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

---

Exceptionally clueless sockpuppet of User:Ofihombre at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fix-It Felix Jr, on indef holiday for their behaviour on that very page. Could we have a quick block please? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Done. I closed the AfD as well. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Mate4Malta

I have been contacted Mate4Malta 11 times between July 2017 and Jan 2018, with no responses and the issues not addressed, although the editor has continued to editor. The concern is the lack of communication and the repeated creation of unreferenced articles.

I have repeatedly pointed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V - no response. Below is a list of creations which are tagged for serious issues, many for being unreferenced. Most of the articles have neither sources nor external links. I have spent hours of my time cleaning up these articles and messaging Mate4Malta to try to resolve the situation, but have got nowhere, they will not communicate or add the sources. They do know how to edit talk pages, as they have edited their page several times, but not in the past year.

• Articles with issues include: Andrzej Kalwas, Il-Gelmus, St. Lawrence Spurs F.C., Munxar Falcons F.C., Żebbuġ Rovers F.C., Xwejni Bay, Marsalforn Bay, Villa Rundle, Sikhism in Poland. Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Embedded inappropriate image in article

Re Rita Crocker Clements. The article pulled up for me today with an embedded image, porn I think, at the bottom. Really large image that I couldn't see all of. It seemed to have been embedded in the last edit before my current revert on the article. Yet, there is nothing that I could see in that edit that had an image in it. When I tried to simply delete the edit, I got a message that it could not be deleted. The revert seems to have worked in removing the image. Looks like now I can't even see the image by pulling up the previous version. Has anyone ever seem embedded porn in an article? Really strange. — Maile (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Once or twice. There was some template vandalism earlier today. It's been fixed so it looks like you briefly caught a cached version. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 (and others), if you can't find anything obviously wrong with the prior version please try a purge instead of a revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate and Unnecessary reverts continuously being made by this editor.

OP checkuser blocked. Nothing else to do or see here. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 19:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Inception2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Inception2010, keeps making continuous reverts on various articles without any reason. He is continuously reverting edits which are improving these articles, and making them consistent with other ones, and he is completely unacceptable.
Here are some links and diffs with the involved pages and editors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Mortensen&diff=prev&oldid=821451558
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ediitor10&diff=prev&oldid=821451639
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jiroemon_Kimura&diff=prev&oldid=821451772
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oldest_people&diff=prev&oldid=821452495
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Mortensen&diff=prev&oldid=821452573
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Inception2010&diff=prev&oldid=821452687
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Mortensen&diff=prev&oldid=821453377
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ediitor10&diff=prev&oldid=821454132
Ediitor10 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The user who written message, named "Ediitor10 (talk · contribs)", starting the edits since 7 January 2018 (only 2 weeks ago), but the behavor of this user are not begginer user, for example, know how to use Wikipedia:Twinkle and know how to use this page (WP:ANI). I think this is may be sock puppet. Ediitor10 repeat arbitrary editing that is not based on rules and guidelines of Wikipedia - and harassment for me. see edit history. Inception2010 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Inception2010, this isn't the place to change the subject about what you have done, Don't try and change the subject to irrelevant topics. Ediitor10 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, whaddayaknow, Ediitor10 has received a checkuser block. It's a wrap. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually yes it is. A boomerang often occurs of a user makes false accusations against another, or if their own actions are deemed unacceptable. An example might be deleting another users response (especially to an ANI).Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Self-promotional account

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

---

I found an account being used for self-promotional purposes only. It is also creating pages with bad article titles, such as this. I wasn't sure which CSD tag would be appropriate, so I decided to bring it here instead. Thanks in advance for any replies, or actions dealt. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 16:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Siddiqsazzad001

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

---

Siddiqsazzad001 (talk · contribs)

• User falsely tagged another user's page for deletion and went as far as to lie and say he was the user (note extremely broken English), possibly seeking to trick the reviewing admin, and immediately removed the warning about this from their talk page. For context the user page in question (Ahmed Lutfe Inam) has been tagged for consideration for deletion at MFD and that user had just requested its speedy deletion, then immediately re-created the page, perhaps in an attempt to circumvent the MFD. These two users appear to be juveniles playing[135][136] with each other.
• Siddiqsazzad001 also previously blanked an AFD and removed the template from an article where these two are tag-teaming.
• User appears to have a very poor grasp of English grammar which raises the question of competency.
• User previously deleted a plagiarism warning about this from their talk page and subsequently expanded it with less broken English than the other edits and edit summaries would lead one to expect. Yonder Music (Bangladesh) is a creation of theirs that is in strangely fluid (and promotional) English when compared to their talk page comments and is blatantly ripped from here or such. This also looks like a blatant copyright violation.

Poring through this users prolific "contributions" is time consuming and I think more trouble than it is worth. These behaviors need to be arrested before more damage is done and there is more to clean up. The entire edit history is in question. Given the questionable competency with regard to English grammar, lack of requisite maturity, the willful removal of warning notices and subsequent continuation of plagiarizing, the willful forging of another user's identity to try to get a page deleted, and how prolific this editor is, I think a block may be necessary to prevent inevitable and continuing damage and obviate the need for close supervision. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There behavior has been considerably substandard, and their attitude worse. Endorse indeff for NOTHERE and CIR. John from Idegon (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed for copyvios plus other issues listed above. Copyvios in Yonder Music (Bangladesh) removed and revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring, deletion of headed content and references, censorship of wikipedia, WP:NPOV

I have been three times reverted (one del and twice rev) by This is Paul at Ben Bradley (politician) where a not-insignificant UK news semi-scandal story had broken nationally, in the wider recent context of exposing/embarassing UK politicians. All 'secondary' reporting quoted was/is based on intial release by BuzzFeed, so due regard to possible WP:CITEKILL. There were 18 separate edits before my arrival (and more since my forced departure after This is Paul's pathetic level 1 warning). S/he has chosen AN/I at Talk:Ben Bradley (politician)#Deletion of sub-heading Ben Bradley (politician)#Brexit and contents including references, expecting y'all to flame me . This is more than just RS, 3RR or BLP - it's editor behaviour/would-be control/WP:OWNership, so this board. All of my changes have been sourced, NPOV, and on-topic.

• 1. I added 30 Oct a sub-heading + another link (primary) source written by Ben Bradley to existing, secondary-sourced content, journalist-attributed to the primary, IP added 18 Oct 2017

• 1a. First deletion by This is Paul 16 January 2018 find a better source please (and later comment "the Daily Express and Brexit Central are just not encyclopedic")

• 2. I restored the deleted sub-section, later expanding, then expanding again with accreditation to BuzzFeed as the source of the widespread press reporting (including a clickable screenshot of Bradley's 2012 post).

• 2a. All content was deleted (Heading, old, new, maintenance tag, +refs), the first full reversion "reverting again"

• 3. I restored all reverted content

• 3a.The second full reversion "you've been told what you need to do; don't do this again unless you're prepared to find reliable references" together with an insulting {{uw-unsourced1}} to my Talk page

Wikipedia needs to be uncensored, NPOV; This is Paul has summarily, unilaterally decided that sourced content is unsourced, and that some secondaries are better than others when all are based on the same press release. All sources are based on BuzzFeed, although Wikipedia may prefer Reuters, it is what it is and BBC News, The Times, Telegraph, NHS, (all from this post-deletion permalink), Bradley's district newspaper and county newspaper don't care where they get copy from, but apparently Wikipedia/This is Paul has decreed that Daily Express is not allowed as not encyclopedic? How about adding a hatnote??

This is Paul has made some 'interesting'(?) remarks "If you throw your toys out of the pram and start screaming about censorship, Knee jerk reactions, the metropolitan liberal elite,({{what}}) and so on, then there is a problem", but has not targeted anyone else, fixated on controlling me and censoring Wikipedia. The latest development is internet trolling of the 'wrong' Ben Bradley, an American TV newsanchor. Suggest this should be added as a test edit, anyone unconnected, for This is Paul to revert you?

AFAIK non of my contributions were unencyclopedic (whatever that's interpreted to mean), off topic, biased, or unsourced. Apologies for the polemic rant, it's as concise as possible. Thanks.-Semperito (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have told Semperito there is no problem with this information being added as long as it is sourced correctly, which it was not. Publications such as the Daily Express, Brexit Central and Buzz Feed were being used to support statements, publications which are not regarded as reliable sources for biographies of living people. I asked Semperito to provide better sources for the information, removing it until this could be done, but instead of looking for references he/she started whingeing about bias and censorship, and threatening to open a discussion here. I believe I acted correctly in removing these badly sourced statements, but I suppose it's always possible I could have used different language, been less acerbic, and pointed Semperito to WP:RS (maybe also WP:DAILYMAIL as it and the Express seem to be similar in nature). As far as I can see the Nottingham Post source included above was not used to source this information. Had it been used then that would have been fine. This is Paul (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment / elucidation The IP-added prose sourced from Daily Express was extant when I added the Brexit Central link (with explanatory edit summary) in October (I would have looked for other sources back then - anything later - now - could be WP:CIRCULAR) - no other objections at all until along comes This is Paul, not having contributed previously: "...so if nobody else has done so already, I'm going to revert you again". (emphasis added by Semperito) - abandon GF and twist the knife. Brexit Central is not a crowd-sourced message board or non-entity blog; in Ben Bradley's own 'hand' and 'voice', his piece is neutral, free from self-promotion, propaganda and puffery, informative and confirms the electorate's 72% 'leave' decision, and Bradley's considerations - to summarize, encylopedic, NPOV, good, interesting WP prose, now denied to the readership, as is the source.

  The initial deletion at 1,098 bytes went to two reversions at 2,306 bytes each. I should have made it clearer that the Nottingham Post link is placed after the permalink, deliberately shown as separated from it, + the Chad = Johnston Press. The 'world' at large is admittedly sourcing from BuzzFeed (hence WP:CITEKILL acknowledgement - they're all 'singing from the same hymn sheet') and the clickable embedded link proves the 2012 content, which Bradley cannot refute - why have a WP BuzzFeed article if we can't refer to it, and internally link, to explain to the readership? I have not editorialized, and have expressed no opinion about Ben Bradley's debacle, or the morals of BuzzFeed. As editors it is incumbent on us to provide any wider view available, and not to be elective-deletionists. Again, this is censorship dictated by one editor's subjective dislike(s).-Semperito (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This is my most recent reversion of Semperito's text. There is no Nottingham Post or Mansfield and Ashby Chad sources included here. The section concerned the subject's support of Brexit which, as Semperito has stated themselves, can be sourced from elsewhere – crucially from at least two sources that would be acceptable. If there are concerns about circular referencing, then it's best left out until such time as they become available. With regard to Bradley's article at Brexit Central, perhaps checking out Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources is also advisable. I would personally avoid sites like Brexit Central, which I would argue falls into the same camp as sites such as Wings Over Scotland, which are basically pushing an agenda. Now this is an issue being blown out of all proportion by Semperito, and the debate over the reliability of such sites should be for some other place. This is Paul (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The reliable sources noticeboard would be the place. Or you could try the BLP notice board as well. --Malerooster (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look in the morning and start a discussion. This is Paul (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Semperito seems to be prone to combative edit summaries, for example, Latest in a sequence of unsupported changes - PLEASE SUPPLY THE EXACT CITATION, DON'T EXPECT A.N. OTHER TO DO IT FOR YOU, also Restored deletion of good inline citations uses primary material from Companies House - we're not supposed to engage in primary source dredging, we're supposed to use secondary sources that have evaluated the primary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

JzG - needs must when reversionists rule - where do ya think I learned it from? I always try to be tactful, collegial and helpful, but the capitalized link above is recent from a long series of IP fan/family cruft changes that I reverted initially, but went back to ensure all 'reasonable' content was included - you neglected to notice/mention that? I don't expect IPs to be cognisant with AGF, but it wears thin. This is Paul has admitted to being "ascerbic", so I will try to use more decorous terms. That's why I didn't file the AN/I for many hours, incidentally. Regarding BLP PRIMARY, I am aware but these are British public documents relating to business, not any actual personal, non-public aspects, so non-scandalous and non-controversial, and the author had stated a British-registered business was American with the wrong formation date from somewhere (probably a press release for the film), repeatedly removing refs without any edit summary. Do ya want WP to be accurate? What do ya want from me - a 24-hour self-imposed abstinence as penance?-Semperito (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Revoke TPA ASAP

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

---

Itsashaunparty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone please revoke TPA? User was blocked for among other things accusing other editors of antisemitism. Since his/her block, they've doubled down on their original attack and also roped me in for pointing it out. Enough. John from Idegon (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:CHR52

The user CHR52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly attacked/accused me of being racist for no good reason ([137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]) despite informative replies and several warning templates. In their own userpage, they wrote "Never come here, Please. Mr. racist." after the {{Uw-npa2}} I put.

• Talk:Bungeo-ppang#/Images of taiyaki
• User talk:Phonet#Accusation by CHR52 (talk · contribs)
• User talk:CHR52#Behavior towards editors

--Phonet (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I have left the user with a clear final warning to stop calling other editors racist, I do also think there is a CIR problem as well. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It looks like we're all racists unless we contribute to Japanese Wikipedia. SMH.... BytEfLUSh ^Talk 04:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Though now I'm hungry for a pear... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Japanese or Korean? BytEfLUSh ^Talk 04:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

More deception from ShaneFilaner

ShaneFilaner (talk · contribs · count) is known for often (not always but on many instances) making problematic sales changes within articles as noted on WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969#Ongoing disruptions from ShaneFilaner. Source quality not withstanding, this user frequently makes thinly veiled attempts to hide his fancruft via misleading edit summaries. He has been blocked more than once for such issues. A more recent issue coming up since his latest block is trying to trick readers into thinking they'll get a listing from Official Charts Company (the authoritative publication for UK charts and sales) when it's actually from a forum called Buzzjack (which is definitely below reference standards for Wikipedia). I've told Shane that attempting to deceive others on Wikipedia won't go undetected, and thought maybe a more recent warning would help him improve his behavior, though it clearly didn't as he evidently doesn't care about notices or past blocks at this point and should be blocked again for blatant WP:IDHT behavior (probably indefinitely this time). Enough is enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User Crayaran Vandalism

Can we get a block for Crayaran (talk · contribs)? Yeah, this is AIV stuff, it's there twice, but the user doesn't give up. Sorry if this is inappropriate (crossposting in multiple admin boards). I will take the trout if needed. =) BytEfLUSh ^Talk 05:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Dab page needed at salted title Sudheer

We now have Sudheer (Malayalam actor) and Sudheer (Kannada actor) so need a dab page at the salted title Sudheer. Could an admin please create it? And then presumably protect the page again. Thanks. PamD 10:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unprotected so you or anyone else can create/maintain the dab. Page was protected presumably due to the activity of a user who has not edited in six years. The round of unprotection in 2012 was the result of a well-meaning admin's failed proposal but didn't relate to this page specifically (read through links in the protection log for details). This sort of request is normally handled by contacting the protecting admin (though I can't tell who it was in this case) or at WP:RFPP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks - dab page now created. PamD 12:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Montanabw edit-warring

Montanabw has been edit-warring [143][144][145] on Colonial Spanish Horse after being asked to discuss on the talk page [146]. This behavior is not improving the article. AnotherDayAnotherWay (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)