Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive973

Another WP:NOTHERE

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

---

User:Hamas Hamas Muslims to the gas new account with only one edit to my talk page: [1] Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Reported at WP:UAA. Given it's a weekend morning UTC (and still overnight in the US) it might get faster attention over there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Also this now: User:Turks are bloodthirsty, genocidal savages [2] posting over and over again, my talk page urgently needs to be locked down Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I've protected your talk page for 12 hours, balancing 'enough time so they can get bored bashing their heads against the wall and go away' with 'we do our durndest to never protect a talk page'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger, would you mind revoking talk page access for the second account? Jiten ^talk _contribs 10:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. If anyone else isn't in a fruitcake coma, can they look into blocks for the underlying IPs? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, The Bushranger, watch it with the gay jokes. EEng 03:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I already did. Unsurprisingly, the accounts are using proxies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet ip 110.77.181.148 is now edit warring at admin's talk page. [3]. It kind of sounds like past messages I've gotten from JarlAxle. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I just blocked that IP, but for a week because I have no idea how long it's going to be useful. NinjaRobotPirate, this IP was previously hit by our lovely never-make-an-edit admin, Procseebot. Do you know how to look up whether it's still a proxy? Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

List it at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This test is a usually a good first step. Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies has good advice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Those are some damn handy links. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Another IP sock 123.185.128.87 Tornado chaser (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this IP geolocated to northern china, while the other one was from Bangkok. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as an open proxy. Please use {{iplinks}} when reporting IPs (and {{userlinks}} for editors) - it makes it much easier to check the history. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Simple refusal to BRD by LlywelynII

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

---

User LlywelynII made some bold bold changes to Nanjing, imposing US ENGVAR. The article had no agreed engvar. He refuses to revert per WP:BRD while giving weak justification and go-slow debate on the talk page. The WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard requires extensive talk page discussion, where the user is (so far) not being very obliging, hence my arrival here. The user has some history imposing his engvar. This behaviour is just irritating. Batternut (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Batternut, isn't taking someone to ANI so quickly over the spelling of "theatre" a trifle excessive? What administrative action are you proposing because you think another editor is "irritating"? This looks like a garden variety content dispute to me, and it looks like you have made very little effort to resolve the matter collaboratively. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, I had a longer reply that got emu'd by your post, but it was along the same lines. See, eg, Talk:Hangzhou where my application of the same brightline test resolved the page in favor of British English. It's just there to keep the page clean and, if there are substantive reasons or strong consensus, that's when it's time to ignore that policy. I haven't seen any substantive discussion in favor of British English or even seeking a new consensus from Batternut yet, although I raised those options and he may have posted on some common Nanjing editors' talk pages and I just didn't see that. — LlywelynII 09:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you answer the questions on the talk page? ie "Oxford spelling "-ize" does not establish American spelling". Quick to talk here, of course, but slow actually discussing the substantive point. Must we conduct the discussion here instead? Batternut (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I find entrenched battling about English variations to be both counterproductive and tendentious. Personally, I would not care a whit if somebody from the UK transformed my American spellings into British equivalents. Go for it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

So do I. Hence discussion before actions is always better. They are not my spellings, btw - I have only edited the page once before. Batternut (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

posted on some common Nanjing editors' talk pages - evidence please!! The place for this discussion is Talk:Nanjing, which is the only place I have posted (other than LlywelynII's talk page). Batternut (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) While noting that I may have been quick coming here, the editor has been very active elsewhere (see his contributions) while ignoring the talk page discussion. The practice of being quick to revert but slow to discuss while one's version of an article remains current, in addition to imposing one's own ENGVAR, is not in the spirit that I hope for at least. I don't know what action to take - any recommendations anyone? Batternut (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I am unimpressed with LlywelynII's editing patterns, the article should indeed be in US English; it's earliest incarnations were neutral (i.e. no words with any difference, although a "z" in recognis/ze), but by 2004 it was written in US-ENG. It's not a big deal, really. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No big deal indeed. I'm no expert at engvar spotting, I just like to see things discussed properly. Batternut (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Admin Cullen328's advice "Go for it." sounds like freedom to change spellings regardless. No encouragement to bother with the talk page, and little wonder none of the user's 30 edits since did further that discussion... Batternut (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Please reread my comment, Batternut. I was giving permission for anyone to change my personal spelling, not to engage in disruptive changes in general. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Batternut (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I've stopped watching the articles that this user is busy with. This discussion can be closed. Batternut (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Tgeorgescu ignoring WP:PROXY

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

---

I am a Chinese resident and therefore am forced to use proxies. I have multiple times explained that WP:PROXY says users like myself can edit via proxies.

I quoted the following relevant section

"Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through an open or anonymous proxy."

He doesn't seem to have the competence to understand though. 169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be edit-warring systematically, using various proxies etc., on the Irish slaves myth article; and now you resort to personal attacks against one of your opponents. This is not gonna end well. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Systematically? How? Regardless that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand here. There is already a discussion at the edit warring noticeboard. Can we keep this focused on the issue at hand here?169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is the case that the IP may not understand that his edit warring does not qualify as a legitimate use. The IP had been reported by Tgeorgescu before this thread was opened and I suggest it be closed on the resolution of that request which I have little doubt will include an IP block. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we please actually address the issue at hand here? The issue being the question of me being allowed to edit.169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually the issue at hand is your conduct as an editor, including your edit warring. I strongly urge you to read all the relevant guidelines and policies so that when you return to editing you will be less likely to be reported and possibly/probably blocked again then. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:John Carter there is already a discussion at the edit warring noticeboard about that. THis discussion is about proxies. 169.239.20.27 (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

May I strongly suggest that you review all the relevant guidelines and policies again which indicate that the conduct of all involved can reasonably be discussed at an ANI which includes your edit warring and your dubiously competent grasp of the application of PROXY. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:John Carter Its better to keep this discussion focused on the proxies because there is already a discussion at another noticeboard about that. If you wish to discuss edit warring please leave your comments there. Regardless I am not seeing much discussion about proxies which is why I came here. Yous are useless.169.239.20.27 (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Just because you may choose among several proxies after one of the proxies got blocked, it does not mean that you would be exempt from WP:3RR. Especially when we hear quacking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there any good reason the IP is not yet blocked for socking and edit-warring?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I just protected Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter Do you have any comments to make on the use of proxies by Chinese residents?169.239.20.27 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done, blocked 31h.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Not arguing with the IP block which was good but more than a few of Tgeorgescu's reverts invoked DENY or SOCK. Were those legitimate? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This was clearly the same IP with a team of Tgeorgescu's and FULBERT reverting them. Whereas none of them seems to have overstepped 3RR, this definitely does not belong to best practices, especially since the talk page discussion was ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The proxy hopper is User:Apollo The Logician, who is banned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you zzuuzz. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor spamming business AfDs with useless !votes

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

---

I'd like for an admin to take a look at the editing history of Hey you, yeah you! (talk · contribs · count · logs), who appears to have serious competency issues. This editor primarily participates on business AfDs, which he spams with the same basic deletion rationale. Ironically, this spammed rationale is that the articles should be deleted because they are spam/promotional. See, for instance: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. This editor keeps using those words, but I do not think they mean what he thinks they mean. Consider also this !vote, in which he dismiss the sources provided by Northamerica1000, but then misidentifies the article subject as a restaurant instead of a supermarket. This glaring error prompts NA1K to rightly question whether HYYY actually looked at the sources. While the AfD problems are bad enough, the editor has also resorted to harrassing NA1K with talk page warnings and involving himself in NA1K's editing disputes. HYYY explains on his own user page that he is a returned editor who created a new account not because he lost his old password, but it is fair to wonder whether perhaps his old account was blocked for this kind of disruption. Lepricavark (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA and WP:POINT. If he'd like to explain the facts and calm down a bit perhaps he could be unblocked, but for now this is a waste of everyone's time. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, that was fast! Thank you for taking decisive action to eliminate the disruption. Lepricavark (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Is a histmerge needed at Language Creation Society?

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

---

Last year, the Language Creation Society article got deleted at AfD, then at DRV, which endorsed the AfD but draftspaced the article and required AfC acceptance before recreation. The draft was deleted via G13 at the beginning of this year. Yesterday, I noticed that the Language Creation Society article had been recreated, containing content that was substantially similar to earlier versions of the deleted article. I tagged it for G4, it was deleted, which was then reversed for some reason... which was then stuck back into userspace, tagged for AfC, and then accepted about a half hour later. Then Draft:Language Creation Society was restored for some reason. While the LCS article is at AfD again, I think a histmerge with the draft may be required because it's pretty clear there is creative influence from the old article, and both articles have received substantial edits from current and former LCS board members and individuals with financial connections to LCS. Any input would be welcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Um... there HAS to be some off Wiki canvasing going on in that AFD. For example, User:Zompist, an editor with a handful of edits in the last FIVE YEARS suddenly comes in to vote keep? I don't buy it. There's some shenanigans going on, and we need an administrator to look into this. --Tarage (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there's something weird happening here. Isn't the AfC backlog like two months long? How did this go from undeletion and userspacing, to submission for AfC (without the article creator requesting it), to approved and mainspaced in 30 minutes (and by the same person who submitted it to AfC)? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I realize that this is the holidays are folks are off enjoying the outside world but please, can any administrator look in on this? We have admitted COI issues both with the article's creation and voting. This is not at all okay. --Tarage (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A history merge does not appear to be necessary - the current writeup is very different from the draftified one. Plus there is the WP:PARALLELHISTORIES problem. No comment on anything else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

I'm growing concerned about the conduct of Pigsonthewing, aka Andy Mabbett, in connection with this article. I appropriately tagged the article with {{coi}}, which Andy is already edit warring to remove. Given there is a talk page thread, this removal is plainly inappropriate. Andy almost immediately banned me from his user talk page when I notified him that his removal was inappropriate. Given Andy's very, very long history of conduct issues, I think some inquiry into his conduct here is appropriate before it grows out of hand. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course you're concerned - you don't like people pointing out that you're applying a COI tag contrary to that template's own guidelines for use, even doing so again after being advised to read said guidelines; you don't like being called out for tagging the talk pages of regular editors; you don't like being called out for your baseless insinuations on the article's deletion discussion. You know that by rising an issue here, admins will examine your own conduct and edit warring ([11], [12], [13]), right? Oh, and I told you not to post on my talk page, which you promptly did again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Language Creation Society. You improperly removed the template after that section was created, and then continued to cite the guidance (not really guidelines) for removal of article maintenance templates. I am very concerned about your conduct in this matter, Andy. Calling my notices on your user talk page "trolling" is hardly appropriate. I will also note that I am required to notify you of this discussion. Your nonbinding WP:KEEPOFF doesn't trump that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note that Andy has now violated 3RR at Language Creation Society. Diffs: [14], [15], [16], [17]. There is no exception to 3RR for removing maintenance templates, even if Andy is correct that I had not created a talk page thread to discuss the COI problems on that article at the time of the first revert (though they were definitely under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination), and I had absolutely corrected that problem before the second revert). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• This is extremely unsatisfactory. User:Pigsonthewing, I have restored the COI template until either the talk page discussion resolves the matter or it is considered in the course of this discussion (as part of a behavioural rather than content discusion). But you are clearly edit-warring over it, and WP:WTRMT does not support your position: even if you did think "that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error... discussing the matter with the original placer of the template is advised." Since you a) do not appreciate templates, and b) clearly know exactly what constitues edit-warring, may we asume you do not require the usual procedural {{uw-ew}}? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Mendaliv has added the COI tag four times and Pigsonthewing has removed it four times. In neither case is the behaviour satisfactory. It is worth noting, though, that the first removal of the template by Andy was justified because Mendaliv had not started a discussion on the talk page – in contravention of the instructions for it use. My advice at that point would have been to to start a discussion about the template on talk, per BRD, rather than re-adding the content which had been challenged. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and I still think the proper course of action is to attempt to resolve such differences on the article talk page, which had been looking decidedly bare until my attempt to ask for some clarification of the perceived problems. I am disappointed that experienced editors are resorting to ANI so quickly over an issue (the COI tag) that has not even been raised on the article page. --RexxS (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

My first addition wasn't a revert. WP:3RR was violated here by Andy and Andy alone. And I brought this to ANI because Andy left me no choice, having given me a WP:KEEPOFF warning and having subsequently continued to edit war to remove the COI template despite the presence of a COI discussion at the talk page. And on top of that, Andy knew full well what the complaint was about simply based on his participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination), he could've participated at the talk page had he looked for the discussion. Andy knows better than to violate 3RR. This isn't something that's fixed by waving your finger at both of us. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And just to demonstrate that this isn't an issue with me alone, just today Andy was carrying on his month-long edit war over at Stage works by Franz Schubert (Today: [18], [19]; Dec. 4: [20], [21], [22]; Nov. 30: [23], [24]), which edit war formerly included Template:Schubert stage works (Nov. 30: [25], [26]). This has to stop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I in no way condone Andy's edit warring, but you don't get to excuse yourself so easily. I remain seriously disappointed by such a respected and experienced editor as yourself adding the same content to the page four times. If that's not also edit-warring, I don't know what is. The moment your COI tag was challenged, you should have been on the talk page, explaining why the tag was needed – something that you still have not done. "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {{POV}} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame or to "warn the reader" about the identities of the editors." What are the "significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement" and why haven't you provided that information in a thread on the talk page? I genuinely hope that the only sanction for you that will come out of this is my "finger-waving", because (like Andy's) I believe your intentions are good, but FFS carry them out properly. --RexxS (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

As I have explained above and at the talk page, the discussion was already well underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination), something which Andy full well knew. Was Andy technically correct in that there was no discussion at the current talk page? Perhaps, but definitely not in spirit. Andy's action was to exploit a technicality in something that isn't even a guideline. Was what I did incorrect? Perhaps as a matter of procedure. Was it wrongful or cause prejudice to any ongoing discussion or debate? Hell fire no. Let's drop the "a pox on both your houses" routine. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's not. The purpose of templating is to bring more opinions and editors to a discussion about an issue. An uninvolved editor is going to see a discussion about the effects of COI on the article at the talk page, where it belongs, not at some discussion on an AfD page. I understand that when you're as involved in an issue as you have become, it's difficult to see how it looks from an outsider's perspective, but the injunction on {{COI}} is not just technical, it's practical. When someone sees that template, they are linked to the discussion at the talk page. You know about the AfD, but it's by no means obvious to the outsider that you're carrying out the debate on a completely different page. I had to ferret about for some time to get a complete picture after coming from Andy's talk page, where you'd dropped a completely inappropriate "Welcome to Wikipedia" template on the page of an editor with 14 years' tenure. What on earth were you thinking? --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What injunction on {{COI}} are you talking about? There's a non-binding, non-policy guidance page that says if there's no discussion go ahead and remove the template. That's not an invitation to break 3RR as Andy did. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And in response to your question about why I used a level-1 user warning template, I decided the least confrontational method in this case was to proceed through the traditional user warning template series. And, if made necessary (whether by continued disruptive removals of article maintenance templates or other misconduct), Andy could be taken to WP:AIV for continued disruptive editing past a final warning. This is why I used a level-2 template after Andy continued to disruptively remove the template. By the way, you'll also note that Andy immediately began to refer to my warnings as "trolling", which I believe is typically considered to violate WP:NPA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• User:Pigsonthewing has also attempted to take this discussion into the well-known cul-de-sac otherwise known as my talkpage; the relevant section is here. Just FAYI. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Pigsonthewing and Mendaliv: Consider this a warning for both you. Pigsonthewing You are being warned for violating WP:3RR. You should have brought this issue to the talk page of the article, or to ANI if necessary instead of warring the tag from the page. Mendaliv You are being warned for edit warring and not following process. If the tag is being removed address the reason why before simply re-instating it. If there is no article discussion page on this issue, the tag has no place being there, outside editors are not likely going to find that discussion at an AfD.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 14:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• If an editor with over 10 years of tenure on en.wiki is accepting these type of outright spams and edit-warring to remove valid COI tags, sigh....Winged Blades^Godric 16:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is not "outright spam", and the COI tag - which is still on the article - is not valid there according to its own documentation. The "substantially similar to earlier versions" claim at the head of this section has also been debunked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about "debunked"? Where did I say in this section that they were substantially similar? I said there was evident creative influence between the versions, in other words that the new article appeared to be derivative based on its provenance, insofar as LCS-affiliated individuals made substantial edits to each other. Thankfully, Jo-Jo Eumerus came up with an acceptable alternative: Redirecting the old draft to the current article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Verbatim quote from your post: "Yesterday, I noticed that the Language Creation Society article had been recreated, containing content that was substantially similar to earlier versions of the deleted article.". Debunked by in this comment by Jo-Jo Eumerus: "the current writeup is very different from the draftified one". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Well that's embarrassing, I misread my own post! Facepalm I've made so damn many posts today on this ridiculous subject. My point wasn't that the new article was a copyvio of the old one, but that there was evident creative influence such that I believed attribution may be required. That's why I was talking about a histmerge up there. Jo-Jo disagreed, and was clear that it would be a problem, so I accepted that. Moreover, the old draft was redirected to the new page, which I understand to be an acceptable non-deletion outcome. Not as clean an attribution chain as I think it could have, but whatever.
          In any event, the article at present is far better than it was at the start of this debacle. A great deal of the crufty bits have been peeled away. And, I'll admit, it's a hell of a lot better than the old draft that prominently featured LCS's mission statement and had a section discussing the professional services they provided the public. So definitely not as spammy as the old version the LCS folks created. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Improper COI tagging

@Mendaliv, Tarage, Pigsonthewing, Serial Number 54129, RexxS, Winged Blades of Godric, and Cyberpower678:

Mendaliv has tagged Language Creation Society with COI. However, when challenged to present even a single example of a substantive non-neutral edit, they either refused to do so or admitted there was none.

I request that either:

1. the tag be justified, per the COI template's clear admonitions; see my challenge to do so on the discssion page;
2. Mendaliv remove the tag and publicly apologize for the false insinuation of unethical behavior; or
3. appropriate disciplinary action be taken against Mendaliv.

See also discussion above. Sai ¿?✍ 18:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

For crying out loud, it's Christmas Eve. I don't have time for this right now. Wikipedia is not an instant gratification website.

Suffice it to say that multiple individuals at the ongoing AfD on your organization's article agree that there are significant concerns with your organization's editing of that article. Honestly, this discussion should be at WP:COIN anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody said when you have to answer. And maybe you could consider your own impact on others' holidays.

In any case, it's very simple: put up evidence of non-neutrality, or retract the improper tag and apologize. Insinuations without substantiation are not ethical. Sai ¿?✍ 18:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPA is actually policy here. Calling me unethical would seem to violate it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I described an unethical behavior — one that you can easily choose to correct. I don't know you and said nothing about you personally. Calling you out for it is not ad hominem. Sai ¿?✍ 18:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed Christmas Eve. However, you were asked about this at 15:55 UTC on 23 December, and ignored that, despite actively posting until 22:42 UTC - almost seven hours later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Cross-linked at WP:COIN per suggestion, with request to direct discussion here. Sai ¿?✍ 18:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Saizai: I'll try to be a gentle as I can with this: you're asking for administrator to take some action (that's the purpose of this noticeboard). No administrator is going to force Mendaliv – an editor with 36,000+ edits and over 10 years' tenure and a volunteer here like the rest of us – to justify or remove anything, or apologise, or admit any wrongdoing. This is a difference of opinion, principally over content, and you need to go back to the article talk page to sort it out. I think that the discussion there has remained generally civil, and you should work with the assumption that all the parties are editing in good faith. You'll make more progress. If that fails, you're next stop should be WP:COIN.

Now, if there are any genuinely behavioural problems, you need to supply diffs so that a busy admin can glance at them and see the problem immediately. Admins are volunteers as well, and if you genuinely want sanctions against another editor, especially a veteran editor, I'm afraid you're going to need a lot more than you've presented here. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said at the talk page and above, the ongoing AfD contains the bulk of the discussion of your organization's COI with regard to editing the article about it. Wikilawyering around the issue is, well, not exactly helpful to your cause. At any rate, I have Christmas parties to attend. So I bid you good morning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Saizai, the COI is an objective fact. We do not have to explain to your satisfaction why your edits to an article about your endeavours are not in line with WP:NPOV. And namechecking yourself in an article really is the dictionary definition of COI, so you can take your Wikilawyering elsewhere. If you edit that article again, you will be blocked for spamming. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't highlight me again with your nonsense User:Saizai. --Tarage (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Saizai I would venture to suggest that I have a better insight into what constitutes problematic editing than you do, especially since you have a dog in this fight. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, RexxS, are you seriously trying to justify Mendaliv's misbehaviour by pointing at his edit count? From what I can see here, 84% of his contributions made this year were made outside article space, and even the remaining 16% are mostly a matter of sticking tags, creating redirects and removing content. The only real contributions are two or three sentences about some football player. Fine, nothing wrong with that, and I'll be the first to admit that this kind of self-proclaimed wiki police does valuable work sometimes, but I also have the experience that people with similar edit patterns don't come here to write an encyclopedia, but simply because they are bored or looking for attention.

I hold no grudge against Mendaliv, and I don't think any disciplinary measures are necessary. What I am flabbergasted about, however, is that some of you are actually defending his behaviour. The problem is not the nomination itself, but the extremely toxic way it has been conducted in from the very beginning. I wasn't even aware of the article until I got a notification on my home wiki that my name had been mentioned on a talk page. What I saw there was a grotesque and completely false accusation directed at my address, even though I hadn't made a single edit in the article or the nomination page. Mendaliv's first reaction was that apparently I felt "offended by the recognition of the problem", and once I had refuted that, he elected not to respond at all, continuing his unwarranted accusations elsewhere. I am not amused about the way I have been dragged into this discussion! Which, I should add, is not the first time Mendaliv misbehaved towards me, because similar offensive behaviour happened almost two years ago. For the record, I may be a board member of the LCS, but I am also a Wikipedian with ca. 14 years experience (including as an admin and Arbcom member at wp.nl) and over 18,000 edits. That shouldn't matter a thing, but well, if people seriously want to use editcounting as a means to weigh people's credibility... (besides, remember WP:DTTR).

The way I understand the AfD procedure, it is primarmily a call to make an article that is unacceptable for some reason (including notability issues) into an acceptable article. Mendaliv's actions, however, make it quite clear that he does not want it improved at all, he just wants it deleted at all cost. Starting from the nomination text, which is more like a rant, full of assumptions, insinuations and half-truths. When people demonstrate otherwise, they are either ignored or put under suspicion. What makes the discussion especially poisonous, is that it focuses on Mendaliv's assumption that people with a conflict of interest had been editing the article, even though he has failed to prove a single NPOV edit made by any of the people he mentioned (in reality, nobody affiliated to the LCS has added anything substantial). For the record, even if the COI were true, it is not forbidden for users with a COI to make uncontroversial edits. I am not accusing Mendaliv of acting in bad faith, I suspect it's simply a combination of ignorance and stubbornness. It is regrettable though that he keeps reiterating assumptions that have already been proven wrong to him in the past, but I take it that's simply because he chooses to ignore facts that don't fit his opinions. I do believe, however, that his constant ad hominem reasoning has a very bad influence on the quality of the discussion. Best regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 14:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Just stopping in this morning to see how this has progressed. I am completely unsurprised to see another LCS officer doubling down on personal attacks against me, complete with gaslighting/projecting. Sai got told to keep out of the article or get blocked, so one of Sai's surrogates shows up. This is the pattern LCS followed in the DRV last year. It is the pattern I expect LCS to follow when it starts a frivolous DRV after the current AfD closes. That LCS and its officers, directors, and people with a financial connection to LCS should not be adding promotional content to this article, should not be dropping their own names in the article, etc. is absolute basic Wikipedia standards. You have an actual conflict of interest, Vice President IJzeren Jan. No amount of dissimulation and personal attacks against me will change that. Now, I am returning to my family Christmas events. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC

In my personal opinion, you sound like a trigger-happy nominator on a mission to destroy. You show a the hyperaggressive and confrontational approach against both the article and everybody you deemed related to it. To my opinion, Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. The Banner talk 21:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It's funny you are accusing me of personal attacks, Mendaliv, while your own conduct in this case has been nothing but one large series of personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you, LCS-affiliated or not, including myself. But well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, right? Minutes ago histories have been merged, so please take a look for yourself. Or wait, to save you the effort, I'll give you the links myself. Here are all edits I've ever made to the article. This one was made in 2010, long before I became a member of the LCS myself. All I did was adding categories and correcting an error in the format. The second one was made in January 2017. I actually removed stuff that I found to be unencyclopedic, including names. That's all. And you keep accusing ME of namedropping???

For the record, let it be said that the person who added my name to the article is a person entirely unknown to me, who has declared not to have a connection to the LCS. If you don't believe me, then by all means file a checkuser request! Although quite frankly, it is ridiculous that people have to prove their innocence, while you still haven't been able to present a single piece of evidence of promotional editing by an LCS member.

Secondly, I don't appreciate being called "one of Sai's surrogates", which is insulting and also untrue, since I haven't add any offwiki contact with Sai since you started this whole thing. Besides, you conveniently seem to forget that it was actually YOU who pulled me into this discussion in the first place.

Thirdly, I already was a Wikipedian when you still were in Kindergarten, so you really don't need to tell me anything about Wikipedia standards and policies. I challenge you to find one single example of unethical behaviour in my entire edit history. If you can, I promise I will personally have myself blocked for at least one year. If you can't, I hope you will at least have the decency to admit that your insinuations have been false.

And at last, you are also accusing me now of dissimulation, too. This is a serious and, as far as I'm concerned, incredibly low accusation. I demand that you either prove or withdraw that. Until now, I have been assuming that you were acting in good faith, and that it was merely your inability to separate assumptions from facts that guided you. But your behaviour makes it more than clear that you are not interested at all in any truthfinding, you just want win this battle by any means necessary, even if that means deliberately distorting the truth. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You are upset about being listed as a {{connected contributor}} to the LCS article. You have not been marked as someone who has edited the article. Being listed as a connected contributor is not an accusation of bias. It is a plain statement of fact: You are an officer of LCS. By definition, the officers and directors of an organization have an WP:ACTUALCOI with respect to that organization. You have followed WP:COIEDIT by avoiding making edits to the article directly, and I think that is a respectable thing to do. I would, however, remind you that WP:COIEDIT also advises you to respect other editors by keeping discussions concise. There is no need for multiparagraph treatises here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the length of my responses causes you trouble. It's just that I'm a bit old-fashioned (not used to writing in slogans or abbreviations), and for what it is worth, I prefer to show respect to other editors by supporting my point with facts and arguments. I would be admirable on your part if you could sometimes do the same by substantiating your claims. In any case, there was no need at all to add me to a list of connected contributors before I had made a single edit. By all means read WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest once more, especially the section titled "Avoid outing". BTW the reason I am upset is not the tag, but the insinuations accompanying it.

Now, I'm not much into wikilawyering, but there is no rule that forbids editors with a potential conflict of interest to edit, especially they are open about their affiliations and their edits are uncontroversial. You seem to assume that every edit made by a person with any kind of affiliation is promotional by definition, and what's more, you basically deny these people the right to say anything about the subject by openly calling upon others to ignore whatever facts and arguments they present. Thát's not right, you see. By attacking people for being honest, you create an atmosphere that encourages people to hide their identity or even engage in sockpuppetry. You should at least understand that people close to a subject are also the ones who know most about it, knowledge that just might turn out to be valuable. To quote something I wrote elsewhere: "This constant focus on editors instead of edits is dangerous and unhealthy for the project. Ultimately, there are only good edits and bad edits. If an edit is good, it doesn't matter who made it, if it's bad, it should be removed no matter who made it." —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 03:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In all my years on Wikipedia I've not been aware that self-identification as a COI-afflicted editor leads inevitably to ignoring such a person's edits or arguments. Rather, the intent is to provide contextualization, and frankly, to cut through the smokescreen of longwinded, pointless argumentation that disruptive COI-afflicted editors tend to engage in. I think you've gotten your point across that you've not significantly edited the article. You've also made it clear that you're the current VP of the LCS organization. The rest of the argument, that there is something untoward about pointing out the existence of a COI without outing the editor, is not really suited for discussion on ANI. This board is not for proposing changes to Wikipedia policy or common practices.

One more thing, though, you characterize the situation... I think of yourself but perhaps other LCS editors... as being a "potential" conflict of interest. This is incorrect. As an officer of the LCS organization, you have an actual COI. You have not disrupted the article by editing yet, though I do argue you have participated rather extensively in LCS discussions, such as the AfD and DRV. I believe your actual conflict of interest is relevant to that discussion. If your hope is to remove yourself from the list of connected contributors, it would have been more simple to just ask for that. I wouldn't have been against it, quite honestly, if you'd been straightforward about that. But when you get into arguments about principles unmoored from the edicts of existing Wikipedia policy, it's really hard to tell what you want. And when you have contributed so substantially to the discussions, as you have, I think it's probably a good idea that you be identified as a connected contributor. But I would (of course) be open to hearing the opinions of others, either here or at WP:COIN, as to whether the identification is advisable under Wikipedia policy. I have no dog in this fight, so it makes little difference to me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Mendaliv

To me, it looks like Mendaliv is waging a war against the Society and its members. And the way he is acting is damaging for the encyclopedia and the community. His personal behaviour should be reviewed too. The Banner talk 11:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I was not notified of this subsection being started. Thankfully, I noticed it before any discussion began. I note that Banner has neglected to provide any diffs of misconduct (or any conduct whatsoever) on my part. Nonetheless, I invite any comments or criticism of my behavior here. I will also note that there has been, contrary to what Banner's claims above would seem to indicate, significant action against spam/promotional activity by the LCS in the article. I find it hard to believe that my conduct represents a personal grudge, hyperaggression, war, any other unsourced/unsupportable BLP/NPA-violating descriptor in light of the multiple concurring opinions regarding LCS's conduct in this matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think Mendaliv has really overstepped any boundaries or that moderator action will be necessary. I also note that some of the most offensive texts were actually written by others. As I wrote above, his tone is a tad too pricky to my taste, and for example sentences like the one above ("to cut through the smokescreen of longwinded, pointless argumentation that disruptive COI-afflicted editors tend to engage in") may be generalisations rather than personal attacks, but it should be clear that the slightly insinuative undertone might easily evoke the wrong connotations among uninformed others. Please, Mendaliv, instead of shelving people, try to be a bit more open-minded and listen to arguments.

Since you ask for criticism, it's actually quite simple. First of all, I get a strong sense that behind the pseudo-arguments and insinuations in your nomination text there's a strong undercurrent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Mission to destroy" might be a strong way to put it, but you are clearly not interested in seeing the article improved. You try to make your point by undermining people's credibility, arguing with keep !voters who use weak arguments and systematically ignoring arguments that prove you wrong. That's not very constructive. Sometimes it pays off more to be a good sport and say: "Okay, I was wrong". Mind you, I actually agree with you on several accounts: I don't believe in inherited notability, I am as much against advertising and namedropping as you are, and I'd much rather have three good references than forty bad ones.

So, I'd kindly like to ask you three questions:

• Please take a look at the three academic publications I've provided, and tell me if you still believe that there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources.
• Do you recognise that the ghits argument you use in your nomination is moot, since even Donald Trump generates less ghits than the LCS, using the same method?
• What else would be needed, in your opinion, to give the article (mind, not necessarily in its current form) the benefit of the doubt?

Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 03:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'll respond at the AfD, reading the newer sources now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah, when content is repeatedly deleted as COI promotionalism of something non-notable, we expect a clean-slate approach to creating an article on it again: it needs to be by neutral, unconnected editors, in an encyclopedic tone and approach, and with notability well-established with non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources – before anything about it hits mainspace. It's standard operating procedure to treat attempts to restore the material as more CoI PoV pushing when these standards are not met; doing so doesn't indicate any personal hostility to the topic. E.g., I edit a lot of pool player bios and would like to see more coverage of women players, but if someone keeps creating an article on the no. 137 player in the WPBA and the editor seems to be her auntie or husband, I will keep seeking to have that article deleted as promotional COI claptrap about a non-notable person – even if she's actually a friend of mine. (Has not happened yet, but could – I know several pros personally who are not notable yet.) This is not MakeExceptionsToTheRulesForSubjectsWeLike-Pedia. There is no principle by which we punish someone at ANI for working to ensure community policies are applied consistently. Mendaliv is not the problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me just note here that I thank Mendaliv for this comprehensive reply on the AfD page. I'm neither an admin nor did I start this thread, but given the fact that the AfD has been completed, I believe this whole case can be closed now. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

COI

Saizai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a founder of the group, is editing the article. I have warned for COI. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I've started this as a subsection at WP:COIN. Please direct comments there. Sai ¿?✍ —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

But, confusingly, you say there that discussion should be directed here, to ANI. In any case, it doesn't help to have it spread over COIN, ANI, and AfD. I have archived the COIN discussion per WP:TOOMANYNOTICEBOARDS. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC).

I say we take the highway approach (aka ArbCom -> Church of Scientology approach) and give them what they deserve. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 20:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

History

Here is the page history, for all us non-admin types...

• 19:11, 29 December 2017 J04n (talk | contribs) deleted page Language Creation Society (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination) (XFDcloser))
• 23:03, 25 December 2017 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) restored page Language Creation Society (93 revisions) (histmerge)
• 23:02, 25 December 2017 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted page Language Creation Society (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
• 21:50, 22 December 2017 Fences and windows (talk | contribs) moved page Language Creation Society to User:Adoricic/sandbox without leaving a redirect (Moving back to sandbox) (revert)
• 21:48, 22 December 2017 Fences and windows (talk | contribs) restored page Language Creation Society (24 revisions) (Restoring to move back to sandbox)
• 10:38, 22 December 2017 Shirt58 (talk | contribs) deleted page Language Creation Society (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSDH))
• 19:43, 1 June 2016 Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) deleted page Language Creation Society (G6: accidentally left redir behind when draftspacing ·)
• 19:42, 1 June 2016 Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) moved page Language Creation Society to Draft:Language Creation Society (DRV closed as: undelete and move to draftspace to require AfC review before mainspacing again) (revert)
• 19:42, 1 June 2016 Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) restored page Language Creation Society (97 revisions restored: DRV closed as: undelete and move to draftspace to require AfC review before mainspacing again)
• 00:52, 4 March 2016 RoySmith (talk | contribs) deleted page Language Creation Society (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society closed as delete)

This page has been protected so only extended confirmed users can create it. The latest protection log entry is provided below for reference.

• 19:14, 29 December 2017 J04n (talk | contribs) protected Language Creation Society [Create=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination)) (hist)

-- Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:MWS

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

---

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

This user is becoming very disruptive:

• [27] 19:35 Dec 24 changes numbers to something the reference does not support. Supposedly they have private data that disagrees with a review published in the Lancet.
• [28] 23:58 Dec 24 (starts addomh signature to main space)
• [29] 14:51 Dec 25 (adds simple disruption and signature again)
• [30] 19:31 Dec 15 (continues)

They were previously editing as an IP and moved to an account once the page was protected.[31]. I had started talk page discussion on both issues.[32] They have removed warnings from their talk page.[33]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hum they use "v"s for "f"s. Reminds me of a prior blocked account that refused to use standard English writing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for signing edits in mainspace, see if they engage on user talk, otherwise we may be back here later this week. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • User:JzG Signing their name again in mainspace[34] and no reference provided. I do not think they have the competence to edit Wikipedia so thus would support a longer block. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Le sigh. Disappointed but not surprised. Re-blocked without expiry, let's see if he gets it. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Given his response was to invoke WP:FREESPEECH and "I can sue" based on same... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

[35] remove TPA? BytEfLUSh ^Talk 01:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

They're still at it, so yes, done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Bigg Boss 11

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

---

Please stop User_talk:ScrapIronIV for making unasusual edits against BB11 as he is trying to removing the things from the page which should not suppose to be happen as that page is also the part of reality show Big Brother, he stated that that show has ended, there are several shows that have ended but their weekly and voting summaries are still existed on their pages so why ScrapIron is doing nonsense on the page Bigg Boss 11. please stop him and warn him too for stop making the edits as he is doing on the page Bigg Boss 11 because there are several Bigg Boss and Big Brother or other reality show related pages where the show summaries relating their votings are still mentioned on their pages either ended or upcoming or under progress. Finally Wikipedia can be used for Sports, Entertainmental purpose by maing accurate articles not the way as ScrapIron did at Bigg Boss 11 THank You.CK (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Broken nutshell - If you have concerns regarding the content that ScrapIronIV is removing, are you discussing the content you're concerned about with him on the article's talk page? I'm not talking about the edit here where you threaten a block and say, "Sorry We're not satisfied by your edits, as you're making wikipedia unauthentic by yourself that could result you to got temporarily blocked from editing for short period or could be long. let the edits remain as you're saying that it's not entertaining thing. yes it is entertaining thing and informative that you made it nonsense by making your slum edits that could result in vandalisms" - I'm talking about a constructive discussion that directly addresses and explains your concerns regarding the content. There's no edit warring going on, and there's no actual discussion taking place on your part that's in compliance with Wikipedia's dispute resolution practices. I highly recommend that you review this policy and do this...

And who exactly is "we"? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I have asked that same question. These pages have been full of sockpuppets, and undisclosed paid editing. These removals are to address specific behavioral issues on these pages, and to remove unencyclopedic cruft from the topic. A TV show with 100,000 bytes of trivia is nonsense, and not in keeping with what Wikipedia is, or is not. Scr★pIron^IV 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I vote to erase the existence of reality TV shows on Wikipedia and save us the trouble of hopeless fanatics. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 20:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not strike the words "on Wikipedia" from that? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

John Carter violated his IBAN again

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

---

In January John Carter (talk · contribs) and I were placed under a mutual IBAN[36] was blocked for one month after almost immediately violating it, by posting about me in an Arbitration page in a manner that was not covered by WP:BANEX,[37] then was immediately unblocked when he claimed in an email to the blocking admin Sandstein (talk · contribs).[38] (This was a blatant lie, as part of the harassment that originally led to the IBAN was lecturing me about the nature of IBANs and the narrow exceptions provided by BANEX.[39]) In the subsequent month during which he would have been blocked, he made several small indications that he was still monitoring my edits, and seemed to be deliberately playing with the boundaries of the ban,[40][41][42] and then in March violated the ban by answering a comment I had made on a talk page.[43] Earlier this month, he made another of the "playing" edits by commenting in an ANI discussion I had involved myself in.[44]

Today, he did basically the same thing that led to his one-month block in January, by posting a screed about me in an ARCA request I had posted that didn't involve him.[45] He questioned my "competence" and making a completely false claim that I was "owning" a draft article that I explicitly encouraged other users to edit, to the point that I expressed dismay that another user had started their own competing draft based on the assumption that I didn't want them editing "mine".[46] Pinging User:BU Rob13, whom JC pinged in his latest violation, but who was also heavily involved in the initial discussion to ban/block JC that led to the IBAN. I want to address what JC about me in my ARCA request for BU Rob13's benefit, but doing so there would, ironically, violate the ban, and would also involve "relitigating" issues that are related to the original 2015 case (even though they were not brought up then), which is something I don't want to do.

Note that John was inactive between February 16 and March 8,[47] and then again between March 8 and November 14,[48] so this is not a case of a couple of accidental slip-ups 11 months apart from each other; he has been violating the ban at a rate of once a month, even disregarding the joining in of ANI threads and the like which I have already joined.

Can someone block him for at least a month given the above background?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Or, alternately, considering the comments by me about which he is complaining relate to the Arb case whose results Hijiri88 seeks to amend, perhaps BOOMERANG on the basis of possibly raising harassing ANI complaints? John Carter (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• An Arbitrator[49][50] and an ARCA clerk[51] have expressed the opinion that the above close was technically a misinterpretation of the rules as they apply to cases like this, and User:Sandstein implied that it was based on a flawed belief that the IBAN was an ArbCom remedy or a discretionary sanction, and even that it was a "topic ban violation" despite the title of this thread.

I was going to ping User:Black Kite on Sandstein's talk page, to the effect that it would be inappropriate for me to open an AE request for a community sanction and that this clarification was already offered to John back in January the last time he made the same excuse, but I figured it best to keep it here.

Can the faulty close be undone or the requested enforcement made?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Procedurally re-opening the thread from previous close as John Carter's statement in ARCA has been removed; As a side note, discussion about the sanction is currently ongoing at User talk:Sandstein#Hijiri88 / John Carter. Alex Shih (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: It's not ongoing: User:Sandstein is WP:INVOLVED (the initial ping was a courtesy, not a request to intervene) and User:Black Kite has already withdrawn their initial questioning of the close (although that was before two Arbs and a clerk agreed with their initial questioning...), so I'm not counting on either of them to do anything. Everyone else was basically saying this ANI thread should be reopened, without comment on the merit of it, and no one has said anything at all for several hours, the last being about 30 minutes after the initial close. Might as well do what was suggested, though, and ping User:Beeblebrox for their opinion; I'm kinda tired of wading through these administrative hurdles that even the administrators don't seem to understand, mind you, so if anyone else wants to cut the knot immediately that would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, but how is this not black-and-white evidence of John Carter hounding Hijiri? How many times do we have to go through this? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• In my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, I've blocked John Carter for one week due to the IBAN violation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Another admin has stepped in and blocked for a week. For the record I agree that it was a pretty clear violation and not exempt, and I probably would have issued a harsher block myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13, Beeblebrox: okay, he's been blocked, but it's clear as day at this point that JC is hounding Hijiri and is looking for every edge scenario he can to skirt the IBAN—including commenting in ANI threads directly below Hijiri while not actually mentioning Hijiri's name. He's obviously not going to stop with this—he's persistently acting in bad faith. Something further needs to be done to deal with it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Curly Turkey that, in addition to the blatant violation(s) at ARCA [52] for which BU Rob just now blocked him for one week, John Carter has also been repeatedly stealth-violating the IBan while ostensibly appearing not to technically (in the very strictest sense). This sort of behavior is completely unacceptable and has a chilling effect on the entire Wikipedia process. The community has already spent far too much time on this issue over the years. I recommend an official final warning that such behavior will not be tolerated and that further instances will result in either a two-month block or an indef block. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC); edited 08:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:DongbuHiTek

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

---

Just like User_talk:Burger King Corporation, User:DongbuHiTek was created for the same purposes User:Burger King Corporation was created, it only made one edit: [53] [54] and it was to add that company to that list. It's unactive, but it could easily be used for self promotional purposes at any moment. Pancho507 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Given this account hasn't edited since April 2015, it would've presumably been declined at UAA, so I guess reporting here seemed like the only thing to do. I don't know what typical practice is with inactive, but clearly inappropriate usernames, but this definitely seems low-priority. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not actionable. No edits for two years; account is inactive and it's not warranted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If the edit was not appropriate, it could be removed (if it hasn't already been). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Spanish Fort High School

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

---

• Spanish Fort High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We seem to have an edit war over a 'controversy' section. But aside from dealing with the behavior, it would be helpful to reach a consensus regarding the imperative to include lists of crimes and deaths that involve non notable persons and receive passing media coverage. I'm not sure why a new account would pop up just to keep such items, unless there's a personal agenda. Thoughts, attention and maybe page protection will be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That's wildly WP:UNDUE, watched and will deal with it if the SPA in question keeps hammering at it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist too. That content simply does not belong in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I remember removing the "purple" section more than two years ago, sourced to the same Huffington Post item. Meters (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Plenty of watchers, me included. I think we are done here. John from Idegon (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI - I revdeleted some BLP violations at Spanish Fort High School. Since this is the first time I have done this, I would appreciate it if an experienced administrator would let me know if I did thinks properly. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: You missed this revision when BLP-violative content was still live. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You need to revdel all versions of the article that contain the BLP violation, not just the version it was first introduced in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mendaliv and NeilN. This has been a useful learning experience, and I appreciate your help. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

IP editor necessitating reverts for non-vandal edits

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

---

2001:8003:4F07:C800:248F:4F6C:D1BE:DA8F (talk · contribs) is continuously making changes to infoboxes that require reversion, such as adding middle names and honorifics, that are against style yet fall short of vandalism. I have left numerous messages on the user's talk page that are unacknowledged. Requesting a block and reversion of any other similar edits. Will notify user shortly. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, whatever the relevant policy is, this IP is definitely edit warring, and Jprg1966 certainly has attempted to talk with the IP. Intervention would appear to be needed here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Relatedly, I would appreciate admin clarification if my use of rollback in reverting these edits was appropriate. I did a large number of reversions in a short time that were not for vandalism per se. So feedback is welcome. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From WP:ROLL: To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear (emphasis mine). So, you did right. :) BytEfLUSh ^Talk 05:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and threatening behaviour surrounding "Wolf Warrior 2"

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

---

For many months, some users and IPs have been blanking mention of negative reviews of the film Wolf Warrior 2, which are reliably sourced. Some of these users/IPs were blocked last month for being the same person (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whaterss). The various usernames/IPs were used to censor a lot of reliably-sourced Wikipedia content that differed from the worldview of the Chinese government, contrary to the policy at WP:NOT.

Now a new series of IPs have appeared to blank the same content at Wolf Warriors 2, and the person behind these IPs is increasingly violating the policy at Wikipedia:Civility.

• name-calling: i.e. here
• rudeness: i.e. here, here
• threatening suggestions that we should meet up in person: here and here; latter of which includes a specific time and place in my city where I am meant to show up and be a "real man"

I have politely warned the user and linked to the civility policy (i.e. here), but the behaviour has escalated since then (with the more recent invitation to meet in Causeway Bay tomorrow). My user page was also vandalised with fake user boxes a few days ago, which I suspect is related.

I haven't seen the film and I didn't add the negative reviews in the first place. I have suggested repeatedly (i.e. here, here and here) that a more constructive approach would be to add more Chinese perspectives to the page if they feel that mentioning negative reviews of this film is "anti-Chinese", but content is still being unduly blanked. Citobun (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest semi-protection; given there's socking (or at least IP hopping) involved and the conduct appears just to be blanking with refusal to interact constructively, I think semi-protection would be a good idea here. The one IP's suggestion of a meet-up to fight over this editing dispute is somewhere between creepy and silly, but in any event shouldn't be tolerated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Semied one month. Any more creepiness from IPs and I will start blocking but if another admin wants to do the deed now please be my guest. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for a week for harassment, with a warning that the next block will be longer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all for the quick response. Citobun (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

My block of 62.253.196.108

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

---

I just blocked User:62.253.196.108 for a week and I am potentially involved. They had just came off a 2 day block for disruptive editing. I interacted with them prior to the block. I reverted a single edit on two different articles as potential BLP violating edits, warned them about personal attacks and reported them to WP:ANEW for edit warring. Since coming back from the block they have made four edits. Warn me about edit warring on an article I have made one edit. Warn another editor about edit warring. Make a revert on an article they were edit warring on before the block. Remove edits from their talk page with an edit summary that is both a legal threat and personal attack. Submitted here for review of the block. ~ GB fan 11:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a fine block. We have no use for a person like that. --Jayron32 11:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Block's fine, yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Archive box busted?

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

---

I'm not seeing any content there, despite purging this page and the module page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Me either. Quite curious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Likewise. General Ization ^Talk 20:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Module:Archive list, which Module:Admin board archives depends on, was modified about six hours ago by Anomie (talk · contribs). I can't say that's what did it, but it's the first change to that code in years... and I don't believe in coincidences when it comes to code breaking. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The same template is working fine on this archive page. General Ization ^Talk 20:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's a different template; {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} vs {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}. While they both call Module:Admin board archives, they do so in slightly different ways. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Frustrating. (A) Can someone post a note on Anomie's talkpage? They don't seem to be responding. (B) Or can someone who has the user rights undo the change that Anomie made? (C) Was Centralized Discussion always on this page? I don't remember seeing it until now. Softlavender (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I undid the change which seems to have fixed the issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Anomie's contribs, it looks like the change to Module:Archive list was made to make this user talk archive list work properly. I think looking forward it would have been better to discuss this first. I'm still not sure why this broke the template. Also, it looks like T:CENT has been transcluded in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader for some years now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, unexpected outcomes, the bane of coding. @Softlavender: - yeah, it's always been there. Have fun with your brain driving you nuts now that you've Noticed it, though! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• All hail NeilN! Seems to be fixed now, if rather shorter than I remember (am I losing my mind?). I guess we can close this now? Softlavender (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Credit goes to Mendaliv. I just pushed a button. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: Sorry I didn't reply in the whole 10 minutes you waited between your the first ping and complaining about non-response.</sarcasm>
• @everyone else: Sorry (for real) for the disruption, I overlooked a case in the module's behavior. See the module's sandbox and talk page to follow up. Anomie⚔ 04:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at Turkey

• Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Khirurg and User:EtienneDolet tag-team edit warring against a recently closed RfC at Turkey.

Diffs:

• [55]
• [56]
• [57]

Attempts to discuss on user talk

Comments by closer of second RfC on article talk: Talk:Turkey#Secularism,_unitary,_parliamentary_republic...

The add was made by User:Icewhiz here with edit summary "per RfC" [58] Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The one behaving disruptively is you [59] [60]. I think it's time you were topic banned from anything related to Turkey. Khirurg (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the article for three days to allow for discussion on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I made the edit in acccordance with the newly closed 2nd RfC on the matter. I do think Khirurg and EtienneDolet may have been confused due to recent editing on the article and the original RfC.Icewhiz (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Icewhiz: I have no doubt that you were in good faith to restore that wording, but I think the entire procedural aspect of opening up the 2nd RFC has caused more problems than it has solved. The first RFC involved 11 users, 10 of which supported the removal of all the wording (democracy, parliamentary republic, secular, and etc.) as opposed to just 1 user. That's an astounding sway of opinion to one side of the debate. And the one user, who happened to be against the other ten, was Seraphim System who kept undermining the first RFC and continuously arguing the opening of another one until the opposition just died out. What's even more problematic is that Seraphim System went to WP:ANI to void the first RFC without even bothering to ping any of the users only to reopen another RFC a day later (pinging was done by Icewhiz). All the other users probably were fed up by the time of the 2nd RFC or just considered it a farce since it was obvious that the sole user who was pushing for a second RFC wasn't just pushing an RFC, but a POV that solely belonged to that one and only user. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
      • In hindsight the ping mechanism did break around when rfc2 was opened, and Godric stayed the open (10 oct) while the ANI discussion was on going, and then reopened later (19 oct) which had the unfortunate effect of pushing this down in legbots' lists. Participation in the 2nd RfC was far from great (in some posers just myself, with comments by Seraphim System).Icewhiz (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Come to think of it, the pinging did break down around that time. I forgot about that. But regardless, at least you made the good faith effort in pinging the participants. And that ANI discussion is more of a charade than a discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#RfC_Closure_Review_Request). Contrary to what Seraphim System says, s/he is the sole user who is challenging the consensus reached by the RFC with filibustering tactics that I've never seen before (s/he keeps responding to his/her own comments back to back to back to back). Just look at the comments of veteran users such as Winged Blades of Godric, Jytdog, Ealdgyth. Not one user is in support of Seraphim's tirade. This ANI discussion was an attempt by Seraphim to push a POV and to wear down his/her opponents before getting his/her way to open up a second RFC. A WP:GAMING strategy that seemed to have worked since very few participants had the energy or time to engage with the user in a second RFC or of the multiple FORUMS the user shopped at (let alone the fact that s/he didn't even bother to inform them). Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The problems with WP:OR and unsourced commentary in the first RfC were noted by several editors, it was not only one editor. Godric closed finding only a weak consensus for removal. In my opinion, the editors most likely did not respond to the second RfC because they did not have WP:RS supporting their positions. It is much easier to make disoganized, unclear arguments without WP:RS then to propose well-sourced changes. In fact, there was no source-based discussion on the talk page at all before the first RfC. RfC's are not a tool to impose unsourced editorial "opinions" "truth" and original research on the articles. At least one of the editors advancing the argument about secularism has been blocked as a sockpuppet - that same WP:OR appears on at least one other article, and I have already found WP:RS that directly contradict the editor's analysis. I'm not opposed to improving the articles and discussing them, but consensus requires source based discussion. There is nothing stopping any editor for trying to gain consensus for specific source-based changes on the article talk page.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It would help perhaps if someone could clarify exactly what happened with the last RfC. The way it's currently being discussed, its pretty hard for someone who wasnt involved to understand what actually happened. Here was what I thought was going on when I closed the second RfC: I thought Godric had closed the first RfC as no consensus because he thought that too many of the votes in the original RfC were just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH rather than being policy based. He then proceeded as part of his close to make a new RfC so that people could !vote on each particular part of the sentence in question, and Icewhiz pinged all the past !voters. Is this not the full story? Brustopher (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The close was revised after I formally challenged it. At least three editors had objected to the non-sourced based "voting" in the RfC. It was also difficult to disentangle different parts of the proposal. There was clear consensus to remove democracy, but the consensus for other parts of the sentence, especially "secular" was much weaker. Godric decided to open a multi-part RfC. A lot of the issues arose from the first RfC being improperly proposed without discussion and for changes that were not supported by WP:RS, and the second RfC sought clarification. I certainly don't think the discussion should be reopened for further "voting" that is not supported by WP:RS. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the second RfC should be reopened and closed immediately as no consensus due to the almost complete lack of participation. I don't think it should have been used to come to any firm conclusions. Number 57 23:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: I think that's a good idea. Considering the fact that nine users (as opposed to one) were against all of these words being placed to the lead, it's only going to create more problems down the road since the participants of the former RFC will return to protest the words they contested in the original RFC. The article should remain locked so as to encourage discussion. The discussion should now focus on the three words that are being added to the article (Secular, unitary, parliamentary republic). And it doesn't have to be an RFC, but a simple discussion. RFCs actually make it difficult in this case because !votes will make things more complicated and confusing, especially when each word that's being added needs to be analyzed thoroughly in accordance to RSs. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The closer states that he has "taken into account arguments from the previous RfC that led to this one." so that is not a reason to reopen. He states clearly: In the previous RfC, much of the discussion on secularism was again just people giving their own opinions and arguments, rather than providing sources. As such there is no consensus to deviate from the original status quo position of describing Turkey as secular. is entirely consistent with WP:POLL. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, User:EtienneDolet has a long history of battleground behavior in WP:ARBAA2 -including a warning.[61] I have not looked into the editing pattern in detail, but the "failure to edit neutrally" may be spilling over into this topic area. His comments during the RfC were not based on WP:RS including:

• "In fact, it's hard to say if Turkey ever was a democracy. I know the West is loving Ataturk right now since they constantly compare him to Erdogan, but Ataturk ruled with an iron fist under single-party rule. During his time, you couldn't even publicly speak any other language other than Turkish"
• " A country filled with long and extensive record of human rights violations against non-Turks, forced assimilation, forced deportations, denial of ones racial identity, the banning of languages, and then outright genocide should not be viewed as accepting of cultural diversity. That's rather obvious to me. As is the secular stuff."
• "Sure, there are RSs that might say Turkey is a de jure democracy (the Britannica source doesn't even say that by the way), much like how there are RSs that say North Korea is a Republic, but if it doesn't jive with reality, then it should not be presented as such."
• "Sitting on top of lost civilizations doesn't make you culturally embracing either, especially when you've annihilated both culturally and physically those civilizations themselves."
• "for the lead and in this particular case, it should be based off of the reliably sourced content already found within the article"

Regarding the last part, Brustopher notes in his close There are sourced descriptions in the body of the article describing Turkey as secular in Wikipedia's voice.. For example, where are sources that languages were banned? Kurdish was not banned until the 1980s, and it had nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide. Even if you are sympathetic to the views here, which I am, it does not excuse abusing the RfC process to impose unsourced person opinions and POV on the encyclopedia. The standards have to be higher. As for battleground behavior, the unsubstantiated personal attacks on the article talk pages need to stop [62] - what forum shopping? Where is the diff? I challenged the close here, at ANI, after I discussed it with the closer. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Drop this--The closure of 2nd RFC is quite well.See my comments at the relevant talk page.Winged Blades^Godric 13:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:173.241.122.42

173.241.122.42 has been reverting my edits on WLBZ, claiming there are typos when they're not; he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. [63] [64] [65] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anything's needed right now; this is ordinary vandalism, but we don't block for ordinary vandalism without a few more edits. If you get reverted a fourth time, feel free to report it as a 3RR violation (either at my talk page or WP:AN3); you're reverting vandalism, so your reverts are exempted, but the IP's edits aren't, and a fourth revert will make him instantly blockable. Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Bill Maher rant at a unrelated article talk page

I've been reverting persistent attempts to reconfigure comments or delete them entirely here [66], but wonder if this soapboxing belongs on the PETA talk page at all. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there and it should be removed. Wikipedia talk pages are not soapboxes for personal rants. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That said, the account that I reported seemed to have earned the block. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

And it's back [67], so this probably will require further attention. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The inanity spreads to a blocked user's talk page [68], which I'm prevented from restoring to last good version. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a bizarre revert history and 2601, you realize you were reverting back in the material in error? I'm not sure the right editor got blocked. Pinging Widr. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I did realize after the fact, NeilN, which is why I brought the discussion here. Re: the blocked user's edits, they weren't simply removing the rant with a rational explanation, but were inserting their own editorial and satirical hooks. It was a mess either way--I certainly won't defend my rapid restoration of the diatribe. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I have unblocked Mr. Meseeks, who was trying to do the right thing, and got caught in the crossfire. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It was Bob Speth who posted the anti-Maher rant on December 17, in his only edit to Wikipedia. It sat their unnoticed for ten days, until hell broke loose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the manner in which they were going about it, I'd assert that they caused the crossfire: [ [69]; [70]; the edit summaries didn't help [71]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

IP is right: Mr Meseeks was definitely trolling at that page, though they did do so by replacing some forum-y BLPvios with what looks like a tongue in cheek impersonation of the original author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems like there's at least three new editors being asshats on that page. Suggest warnings to all of them. --Tarage (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, seems a bit fishy. I'm trusting that Cullen328 will keep an eye on Mr. Meseeks' edits. Widr (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Widr: Speaking of fishy, you've trouted yourself for treating removals of BLP vios as vandalism? And the edit request, while unlikely to be supported, is plausible. [72] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

After reading those edit summaries, I have warned Mr. Meseeks, and will watch their edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Recurring incremental vandal

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

---

We have a recurring IP vandal, primarily targeting sports' championship articles, but also a handful of movie articles as well. As my eyes start to glaze over when discussion turns to sports statistics, my examples are limited to the movie articles, but I've confirmed similar patterns in the sports articles.

(As the editor switches IPs so rapidly, I have not notified anywhere.)

Details, including an extensive list of IPs used, are available at User:SummerPhDv2.0/Cellco_vandal.

Sample behavior:

• Twister (1996 film)

Running time from 113 to 114 minutes 16:33, October 24, 2017‎

Running time from 114 to 115 minutes 16:37, October 24, 2017‎

Running time from 115 to 116 minutes‎ 14:25, November 3, 2017‎

Running time from 116 to 117 minutes 15:01, November 3, 2017‎

reverted to 115)

Running time from 115 to 116 minutes 17:17, November 3, 2017‎

(reverted to 113, per IMDb)

Running time from 113 to 115 minutes 17:42, November 3, 2017‎

The editor never uses edit summaries, ignores all talk requests and changes IPs frequently. The range of affected articles is fairly large (several dozen at a bare minimum) but most of the IPs are in a narrow range. I have not seen any unrelated edits in the addresses I've checked but I have little to no idea how to figure out how much collateral damage would come from a range block. Thoughts/suggestions? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Could be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ron liebman Billhpike (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, Liebman was largely fixated on baseball player biographies. But it's been like ten years since then, so he might have branched out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This range probably be safely blocked with minimal collateral damage: 2600:1017:B024::0/40 Billhpike (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Abuse is continuing this morning. Billhpike (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And yet more [73] [74] Billhpike (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

And more today. Can we get a short term range block? Billhpike (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And more [75] Billhpike (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Range blocked for a period of 72 hours. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on my talk page

Please see this, along with a spurious block notification here along with multiple insults on my talk page. A remedy would be appreciated. Scr★pIron^IV 15:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User warned for harassment, spurious warnings on ScrapIron's page removed. Some protections might be needed at the apparent source of the trouble at Bigg Boss 11. Acroterion (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Since I was tagged on Scraps talk by Broken in what was changed to tag big boss later, I'd like to point out Broken has been blocked before and to my knowledge has not contributed anymore then disruption to wiki since they joined. Just my 2 cents. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 15:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User: Cjhard Conduct

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

---

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

In trying to better work with others civilly as best as possible and submit as much quality content as possible to Wikipedia, I am finding that User: Cjhard is particularly going out of their way to "essentially" stalk me and spitefully revert edits I make to a page. Other users, while not agreeing with me on certain content, at least upon reviewing my evidence afterward, tend to accept it if correct/reliable and allow things to move along as needed. When they don't, I am forced to accept and abandon it. In the Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album) article, I noticed questionable information in the infobox. Sensing it was added by a vandal by its nature (no source/citation nor edit summary explanation provided), I removed it and restored the correct information. A user that goes by "Summer...", reverted my edit & added back the incorrect information and then sent me a warning to my page, which I did perceive as disrespectful and condescending (against my good intentions), yet somewhat understandable if one hadn't studied the page edit history, to come to the correct conclusion. I addressed my disappointment and then I opened up discussion on the talk page to showcase evidence, in which no one replied nor explained their viewpoint on the content. I restored my edit that listed 2001, under the belief that no one has provided a source for the date period of 2000-01, since it was the work of a vandal 4 years ago. Like with the TLC Creep (TLC song) (thank you User:Beyoncetan helping me out to fix it), User:Cjhard swiftly undid my contribution again at this Snowflakes page, scolding me to "Stop making unconstructive additions". Studying the contexts of my edit there, it is the very opposite. Taking issue with this, I addressed the matter at the talk page, I am tired of this user's demeanor towards me and find it to be holding a grudge. Judging by how User:Cjhard also relates to other users on Wikipedia, at times being unnecessarily snarky or condescending (see attitude towards User: EEng), they are behaving in an extremely biased manner towards me out of spite, after having randomly contributed in support of an attempt to indefinitely ban me from Wikipedia. Then subtly expressing displeasure when that didn't occur, in which I received via panicking alert (Your alerts tab) about that.

If a user is going out of their way to deliberate undo well-meaning edits of mine from an article, yet turns other cheek when another user does the same (Beyoncetan), I cannot help but think, it is a bit targeted and hardly objective at all on his part. I cannot entertain other users refusing to be objective and holding past incidents against me by fighting my contributions, to the point it can seem personal. I do not see how my contributions at diffs 1 and 2 , were worthy of reversion, especially when proof was shown of why I made the correction in this talk page diff before Cjhard's article page diff. Like I once did, User: Cjhard needs to be made aware that perhaps they need to go about things here more objectively and not merely be reverting edits, solely based on their feelings toward the user that provided it and then not doing the same with other users on the same content, out of less bias. Despite feeling offended by another user's countenance towards me over a long period of time and made similar attempts to have me blocked, I have in turn gone out of my way to make so many contributions for them and share difficult to garner research. If I am able to be that pleasant and generous, there is no reason why User: Cjhard cannot do so and strictly focus on reverting actual submission of bad content, versus edit warring and making false accusations against me, in response to me dutifully correcting invalid content submitted by vandalous IP user 63.92.231.105.--Carmaker1 (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I see two examples of Cjhard reverting edits by you. I see zero attempts by you to discuss your concerns in a reasonable manner with Cjhard before bringing this to ANI, filing a request for mediation, and reporting him to WP:ANEW. I think your concerns here are way overblown. I also think your post on his talk page is overblowing things as well and is combative. It seems to me that the way you're acting right now is part of the reason other ANI threads were opened about your conduct recently. I note that the most recent thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive971#Another_Carmaker1_report_for_NPA_and_OWN was archived without ever being closed, but it seems that there was a clear consensus there to topic ban you from commenting on others via edit summaries. only (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I remember, there was no topic ban issued on Automotive topic editing and having returned to that, I have done very well in the Automotive section and focused moderately on music. A topic ban has nothing to do with the agreed aspect of not writing usernames in edit summaries, does it? I no longer do that, but my talk page is still my talk page. Is this very matter going to be resolved, on the primary focus of what is being reverted by this user and the aspect of obviously monitoring my edit history or not? My previous ANI discussion has nothing to do with the fact incorrect information was introduced into a music article 4 years ago and how I took the effort to fix it (belatedly), then when I explained and provided proof for it after one revert, the user in question did not take the effort to read the talk page and automatically reverted. I have already proved that the IP user who introduced the information, was known for such edits that constituted vandalism and nearly banned for that vandalism after receiving warnings on providing erroneous information repeatedly. Naturally, most users will see the issue with the content fairly well and come to consensus, in caring to do the correct thing. How can we have a discussion in the first place, when the other user is not willing to review the evidence and address what should be done? Please be objective here. I expect that as a Wikipedia user, that I am allowed to bring things to my concern, without unrelated incidents being brought up in incorrect context. I did mention that, but unlike another participant, I take it this user has not moved on and isn't looking at the subject with clear eyes.--Carmaker1 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carmaker1:, looking at all your interactions with Cjhard since November 1 does not show any evidence of stalking by Cjhard. On Creep (TLC song), you changed something which you identify in the edit summary was based on personal conversations with the audio engineer. On Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album), you were reverted for making unsourced additions. Even if the information was originally added previously by another editor, you still have responsibility for its re-addition through reverting. You have been strongly counseled by many other seasoned editors about exactly this kind of behavior: making changes to articles based on personal knowledge or without identifiable sources. Cjhard is quite correct to have made those reversions. To claim that a mere two reverts is worthy of any response, let alone this level of response, is a, well, let's just call it an "idiosyncratic interpretation of collaborative editing". I seriously suggest you withdraw this report before curved aboriginal hunting implements begin flying. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what you are saying in your last sentence? Thanks. I don't have much disagreement with the results of the Creep article, except where dearly respected and hardworking Beyoncetan, was able to re-add the same content establishing "1993-1994", without providing a source to support it and no interest from Cjhard, unlike my edit. After my edit was deemed unsatisfactory, the pre-existing content was removed by me in not being reliably supported either. User Beyoncetan kindly sorted that all out. Even at that, the Creep article has less concern to me than the most recent revert with Snowflakes. The Snowflakes revert is questionable because it does not have to do with original research. I was doing what should've been done on September 4, 2013, when the unsupported erroneous addition of 2000 - 01 was made, to revert it back to 2001. Summer... and I have thankfully mutually resolved it, by leaving the section empty.--Carmaker1 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carmaker1:, that last sentence was, as the esteemed EEng says, a "coy circumlocution" for WP:BOOMERANG, which you may want to read. That said, the rest of this reply is pure content dispute stuff, which is not what this page is generally used for. The conduct issue of stalking appears to have no basis. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? You are not reading my points (at all). It is rather snide to convey it that my wanting to document this and have it at least brought to attention, is BOOMERANG. If I reported here about User:Beyoncetan, User: 1292simon, or User: Summer... Then I could see your point very clearly. I brought this up, because I saw a conflict of interest with his conduct. In one case, I did something mistakenly (uncited interview) and he jumps on it (understandable). Another editor adds the same content, he does nothing. One other edit I make and open discussion on talk page, he chooses to ignore it and not discuss to wrap it up. Summer later agrees and decides 2000-01 at least should be removed in being also unsourced. Problem solved independent of him. See a pattern? Does this mean any ANI discussion I may ever have to create in the future, will fall directly on "Yeah, you had an ANI on you about xxx time ago, who cares about your concerns Carmaker1...you are WP:BOOMERANG, WP:EVIL, WP:ANNOYING, WP: DEFENSIVE...etc Carmaker1". I should be fine with that appparently. Thankfully both Beyoncetan and Summer... are kind and hardworking editors, to help resolve things quickly and fairly. This discussion can be closed then, thanks to the hardwork of theirs on the content dispute. I thank them both so much.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carmaker1:, you are drawing all the wrong inferences possible from this. Just because I didn't agree with your points or directly address them does not mean I didn't read them. In fact, I did. It is because I treated your complaints seriously that I looked at your interactions with Cjhard and found your characterization of them wanting. There is no reason visible why Cjhard's conduct is or was violating any policy or guideline. Ordinary editorial disagreements should preferentially be solved through ordinary means (e.g., article and user talk pages, WP:3O, WP:DR, etc.) as in fact this one seems to have been. WP:FORUMSHOPPING to attempt to get your imagined opponent into trouble almost never works. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet again I renew my call for a moratorium on coy circumlocutions for boomerang. EEng 18:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh? I really could do without that, as it isn't necessary and I have not directed anything unpleasant at you. Having seen how rude Cjhard was to you once on his talk page, plus more, made me move forward with this ANI and realize this individual has their own pattern of behavior I don't want to deal with unchecked and needed to be pointed out at least once. Come on now, you are better tha .--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh? is right. I have only once interacted with Cjhard on his talk page, and there was nothing unpleasant about it – I made a joke, he got the joke and joked back. I won't even link it – it's stupefying that you are able to misinterpret things this way. (Above you refer to Cjhard's "attitude towards User: EEng", and for the avoidance of doubt I'll say I have no idea what you're talking about there either.) As for "I really could do without that", I have no idea what you're talking about: "Yet again I renew my call for a moratorium on coy circumlocutions for boomerang" hasn't anything to do with you. You seem to get everything backward if not completely mixed up. EEng 22:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I strenuously object to that call, and further request an aerial ligneous apparatus for the editor calling for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Your mother wears army boots. EEng 22:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

[Scent of elderberries intensifies]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

More block evasion from Armanjarrettp

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

---

A bot archived this section without any discussion, so I have relisted it here. Cards84664 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs)

Same as before, as seen here.

• ESZCocoran426 (talk · contribs)

Poor grammar, using previously made articles to change other transit templates. Yet another sock account. Cards84664 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've started you an SPI page for this and future occasions. Probably a better response there than here regarding socks, that may be why the previous thread was so quiet. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate behavior, edit summaries from IP 31.173.85.106

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

---

Earlier, I was cleaning up the vandalism from 31.173.85.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Rape of Belgium. They did not at all take kindly to this. [76] [77] [78] The IP kept reverting my and Abce2's cleanup until Killiondude blocked the IP for 12 hours for "Misbehaving". Cleaning up the IP's inappropriate comments led to [79], which I think qualifies as more than just misbehaving. Would it be possible to get a longer block and some RevDel on the last edit summary at least? (For obvious reasons, if someone else would make the ANI notice on the IP's talk page, I'd be much obliged.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Saiph121, take 3

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

---

As previously discussed[80], Saiph121 refuses to accept the local consensus: not to include both parent and child categories in the same article (which is also the editing guideline. Having repeatedly added, restored, re-restored, re-re-restored and re-re-re-restored the same disputed categories to several articles, they suggested "that we establish a major consensus in resolving these disputed categories". Though numerous discussions and two trips to DRN established that they really either don't understand Wikipedia's use of categories, Shearonink started a discussion on the question (Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Request_for_comment_re:_categories_of_this_film), notifying Saiph121 of the discussion. Saiph121 did not participate in the discussion. The consensus was to follow the editing guideline. Saiph121 is now back to edit warring against an established consensus to include categories that they deem "important to the film".

Given their extensive history of not understanding (or choosing not to follow) the widespread consensus on categories (outlined at Wikipedia:Categorization) (see earlier discussions[81], [82]), it is my belief that Saiph121 simply either unable to understand or unwilling to follow any guideline or consensus that is contrary to what they feel "should" be in an article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we should wait until we get to take 10 or so...NOT!! Look at the users talk page, talk about giving someone enough rope!! SummerPhDv2.0 has been SO patient with this user its scary. Anyways, --Malerooster (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2017‎ (UTC)

I've blocked Saiph121 for a week, with an explanation that I hope will get the point across. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

History of adding unsourced content to BLP articles

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

---

• Gian Felicino 6 (talk · contribs)

I suspect most of the account's edits--and there are a lot--are due for reversion. Numerous warnings have been ignored on the path to adding birthplaces and changing genres. Diffs not necessary, as you can probably pick any edit at random to see the problem. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Dongbu

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

---

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

Seems to have been created by the korean conglomerate with the same name(they just changed their name), clearly using an improper, promotional username, apparently created just to upload that conglomerate's logo: [83]Pancho507 (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No edits on enwiki (the upload is to Commons, and over two years ago; I have nominated it for deletion). This would presumably be declined at WP:UAA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've never understood that policy - if the name is a violation, it's a violation, no matter if it has edited or not. When names like these are turned down, it means that the editor must edit, and then someone has to pick up on that fact and report it before it can be blocked. That's just haphazard and silly and inefficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Can we get some help?

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

---

Russian IP on a rampage [84]. JNW (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --Masem (t) 07:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Some users may need talk page protection. Cheers, JNW (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Harassment by Velella

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

---

Velella has been reverting my constructive edits and harassing me on my talk page. Epic Floridian (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Should point out that the user (Epic Floridian) is a new account, who has gotten into hijacking this article ([85] [86] [87]) without explanation and without any discussion. Also, Velella did not harass you; he/she was warning you about disruptive editing as per the diffs I've provided. Possible WP:BOOMERANG. theinstantmatrix (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Now Everymorning is doing it too. Epic Floridian (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Everymorning: although poorly formatted, and likely to be quickly closed with a boomerang (which Epic Floridian would do well to read), there's no justification in removing this post. It will come, Kayleigh-style, to a natural end :)
• Epic Floridian, Velella is not "harassing" you on your talk page (that means something rather specific here), but is actually helping you. They are advising you as to the ill-judgement of your actions in repeatedly (to the extent of edit-warring) hijacking an existing article with something completely different; and you should cease immediately. If you want Wikipedia to have a Long Bayou, Florida article, then please please write it, and it can stand or fall on its own merits. But your curent actions are verging on being disruptive. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Any time I try to create the article it redirects me. Epic Floridian (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Epic Floridian, please click on User:Epic Floridian/Long Bayou, Florida and we can work on that. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

If you need help doing stuff on wikipedia, try WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse. Don't destroy another article and other people's work just because you are unable to do something. People are quite willing to help newcomers, even those who make minor errors, but when you are completely destroying an existing article and the work of other contributors, this is not really a minor error and you just annoy people who may be willing to help. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well, thanks very much to User:Finlay McWalter, who has just indef'd the editor. Breaking a butterfly on a wheel, much? As a new editor who had an idea for a new article (and received few pointers in how to achieve that end), I can hardly think of a better example of WP:BITE. FFS. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

An obvious vandal account, who vandalised a collection of unrelated articles which had nothing to do with "an idea for a new article". -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Obvious? You might have tried education and discussion to establish what the issues were. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well these edits [88] [89] [90] are odd to say the least. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree they're less than useful (although only the one that clearly doubles the existing road length is particularly egregious; the others are close enough that they could be simply misreadings of sources? -or somesuch). But it's really the fact that this is an indef for (I quote) "obvious vandalism," and I think it's not as clear-cut as that. It's probably also worth noting that the so-called vandaism didn't actually start until they had been knocked back at other venues- frustration perhaps? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Obvious vandal or returning troll/evader. 8th edit ever was opening this ANI thread, then immediately posting the {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to Velella's TP; 14th edit ever was to AIV. Might want to run a CU on the account. Softlavender (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

AIV very very backlogged

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

---

Just looking at it right now is enough to give one a migraine. 22 cases and I just found a vandalism sock ring. Can we get some help over there, please? Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 09:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems the bot did not change {{Noadminbacklog}} to {{adminbacklog}}. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor removing mention of Assyrians

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

---

This editor's sole purpose seems to be either removing mentions of Assyrians or changing it to "Syriacs". After being blocked for a month they went right back at it. Eik Corell (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like block evasion. Re-blocked for three months this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking of Assyrians. EEng 22:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  I looked on Commons for an image of a spit-take to sum up my reaction to this video. Unfortunately, there was nothing appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:92.113.205.84

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

---

• 92.113.205.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Disruptive editing and WP:IDHT pretty much sums up this IP's conduct. I had tried communicating and telling this editor to discuss on the template's talkpage with no result but reverts/undoing. [91] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please could you give some examples of what you consider "disruptive editing".

The IP editor has made nearly 2,000 edits since 19 December. The ones I have looked at seemed reasonable to me. Not everyone agrees with him/her. But he/she is clearly making a well-intentioned attempt to improve the encyclopaedia.

The IP editor has some annoying behaviours:

• He/she almost never explains edits in edit summaries - for example [92] where the edit is good but the lack of edit summary is not.
• He she deletes advice and warning messages from his/her talk page.[93] - unfortunately, he/she has a right to do this. This is at the root of the WP:IDHT complaint.
• It would be better if sometimes he/she used article talk pages to explain edits of his/hers that other people have reverted. But he/she is too busy doing vast numbers of administrative edits for this.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, can you clarify something for me? Your main initial issue was the removal of the bolded years, if I'm reading you right. The rest of it, the h-class and the alphabetical changes, you said weren't a problem. Although there was some dickering back and forth, at this point the IP has left the bolded years in the template and is now just doing expansion/correction editing. Why continue to revert the IP after that issue was resolved, unless I'm missing something else they were doing? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

My English is not very good. I don't understand what is the problem with my edits now. PMC said correctly to my opponent, "the h-class and the alphabetical changes, you said weren't a problem... the IP has left the bolded years in the template and is now just doing expansion/correction editing. Why continue to revert the IP after that issue was resolved"??? 92.113.205.84 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: This IP does not discuss things first before reverting/undoing. I am now aware of the language barrier, but this would fall under WP:CIR and WP:ENGAGE as we are a collaborative project. I actually am prepared to make more reverts as the newest changes are major so how can I discuss this if the IP cant communicate? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

(Sorry for the late reply) The IP has been sock-blocked now, so the issue has turned out to be kind of moot and I've got egg on my face for trying to help out someone who seemed to be constructive but turned out to be block evading. I apologize; I wasn't trying to undermine you by my comment above. My next step after your response was going to be to try to explain the issue to the IP in an uninvolved way and try to get them to engage properly, but as I said, the CU block has rendered my intentions moot. Please let me know if there are further issues with the same behavior (either from another IP or this one once the block expires). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay and thank you, the IP might want to be informed of the block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23 did the CU block, not me, and I assume he had his reasons for not placing a template on the user's page. (As an aside, I have reverted the template to your last version, since you were at 3RR and couldn't right now). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, and thanks again. I feel this can be closed as resolved now, have a happy new year! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You too :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User:Robharper1713

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

---

• Robharper1713 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Threatened legal action here. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. only (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Apparent ethnic nationalist edit warrior at Chin people

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

---

• Chin people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chin/Zomi articles are difficult because sources conflict and there are disputes among the various peoples over nomenclature, etc. User:ConradWalterSmith has suddenly appeared making major undiscussed changes which deleted sourced text, changed some sourced text and added unsourced text. I reverted him, went to his talk page and wrote "Please don't do that again. If you have a dispute, take it to the talk page with sources meeting WP:RS. I realise that there is a dispute over nomenclature but we don't take sides over this". His response was "here is not some simple dispute over nomenclature. Zomi is a subgroup of Chin itself. A lot of this info is factually incorrect and you are doing a huge disservice by propagating this false info. You have no idea what you're doing. Go to any Chin communities in the US and show them this page. This is outrageous and insulting to Chin people. You can't write your suppositions and guesses as facts and pat yourself on the back. By spreading these false information, you're dividing an entire ethnic group. This is essentially like saying one European ethnic group constitutes the entirety of Europe." This is in fact the dispute, see this which says "The term Chin is typically used only in reference to those living inside Burma. .. Until recently, there appeared to be a consensus that the term Chin was not an identity that any of these peoples would choose to describe themselves, and for many, it was (and is) considered derogatory. However, some Chin nationalist historians have tried to claim authority for this term as an indigenized form of self-reference....Some promote the terms Zo and Zomi, stating that they are derived from the name of the mythic common ancestor of all the Chin peoples. However, not all Chin groups accept this interpretation. There have also been concerns within the Burmese government about the development of a pan-Zo political movement, which might seek to unite “Zo Land” in Burma with Mizoram in India."

I'm providing this detail just to show that there's a dispute and that it's covered in an RS. Editors come and go on these articles trying to make them reflect their particular pov. I'm here because although this looks like an edit dispute, it isn't obvious that it can be handled the normal ways as this editor continued to make the same sort of changes with the edit summary "fuck you Doug" at one point. I really don't have the energy to deal with editors like this, who charge in and apparently don't care or even notice when they delete sourced text, etc. Maybe a word with the editor might help, but frankly I think I'd be better off just taking the page off my watchlist and leaving it a mess. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Doug, User:Snowded reverted the most recent disruption along with a reprimand for the uncivil edit summary. And I've placed a personal note on their talk page about edit warring and requested that they engage in a talk page discussion before any further edits. We'll see if that helps. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I believe this ANI notice has garnered the article sufficient watchers that any further inappropriate editing will be dealt with easily, and that therefore this thread can be closed. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender:Except that the editor’s response to User:CactusWriter jipust now was “Dear CactusWriter Go fuck yourself as well. You wiki editors can get off your genteel cyber high horses since you suck ass at sharing knowledge and only spread false info while shooting down corrections. This is why Wikipedia is a joke and less people are becoming editors. ConradWalterSmith (talk) 7:23 am, Today (UTC+0)” Doug Weller talk 07:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to review this

Looks like a fairly clear case for a block (or at the very least a final warning), at this point, as ConradWalterSmith (talk · contribs) is clearly NOTHERE, is editing disruptively and with a strong POV, is edit-warring, and is attacking good-faith editors. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please bring out the banhammer for this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Non-respect of a one week ban by 82.132.187.242

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

---

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

Previous ip

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

This ip 82.132.240.129 contributing at Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark has been banned for one week. They haven't respect the decision as they are back after only 4 days away with a different ip from the same block 82.132.240.129 . Here is the report about 82.132.240.129. Woovee (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Woovee: I've blocked the current IP, removed their comments from the RFC, and semi-protected the article for a month. The IP range is too large for a rangeblock but you can revert all their future edits on sight as it's a banned user. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor using multiple profiles

PAGEOFLEGAMES (talk · contribs), Medaltables (talk · contribs), Medaltables2 (talk · contribs), Holidayof2017 (talk · contribs), OlympicsPAGE1 (talk · contribs), KABBEY (talk · contribs), ChampionshipsSthings (talk · contribs), PARACLHIANMEPBIAOLNLSSHSISPSS (talk · contribs), OlympicOverview (talk · contribs) (there are probably more) all seem to have been created by the same person. All of them have a sandbox which consists of copies/modifications of sections of wiki articles. The editing history consists largely, though not exclusively, of edits to these sandboxes. So far one has been deleted on the basis of WP:NOTWEBHOST. That would seem to apply to all the other sandboxes as well. It was also suggested in the deletion discussion that the user was a sock of a disruptive editor of the Runcorn article and that they be blocked (this did not eventuate), although that may be just coincidence. User:BIO-GRAPHY1/sandbox appears to be the same person, if so then they are 12 years old. Opinions/suggestions of appropriate action(s) welcome. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the "biography" at User:BIO-GRAPHY1/sandbox suggests they are a 12-year-old from an area near Runcorn and so it would not be unsurprising if they were editing that article. I'm going to delete the "biography" as it gives personal information of an under-age user. The other accounts all do seem to be the same user. I am guessing that they are trying to create various things in sandboxes and don't realise that they don't have to create a new username for each "thing" they create - they're using the usernames as article titles. I'm going to block all of the usernames except the oldest, and leave an informative message on each userpage. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Right, OK. I've blocked them all except User:Medaltables (I found two other accounts as well), left block messages pointing them back towards that username, moved all of their sandboxes into Medaltable's userspace (and showed them how to access them), and explained what has happened on Medaltable's userpage. Probably a big waste of time, but if they are serious about actually trying to do something useful, hopefully they will. Black Kite (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Black Kite, add User:TheMiscellaniousStuff to your list as well. CU, you know... Drmies (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, done. I suspect we might have a case of whack-a-mole occurring soon, but it was worth a try. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Complaint about Tvtonightokc

Tvtonightokc has been constantly adding information to articles so that they're too long, especially Oklahoma TV station articles. I put the "very long" template on top of them but he keeps taking them down. He may also be using an IP to add irrelevant information to other articles. Can you tell him to tone it down or at least cut the articles to a reasonable length? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Also, could someone archive parts of his talk page? That's getting very long too. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, please remember to present evidence, whether as diffs or otherwise. WP:WIAPA says that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are considered personal attacks. Also, it's easier for admins if you give us evidence, rather than us having to look for it. This is a rather easy situation to investigate, so no complaints, but any future reports will be easier for everyone if you present evidence. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, have you tried to talk with Tvtonightokc about this idea at all? Glancing through your contributions to all namespaces except mainspace, I didn't see any interaction with him. It's not particularly appropriate to sanction someone for this kind of activity unless he understands what we normally do; this isn't something like vandalism that anyone will understand to be inappropriate. If you have interacted with him anywhere except mainspace (presumably your talk page, his talk page, or one or more article talk pages), please leave a note here explaining where you've had this interaction; again, diffs would be best. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's some evidence: [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] And the IP edits: [110] [111] [112] [113] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; that's what I was requesting. What about the edits from Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1D80:47C0:CCA:CF5D:52F7:B249 make you suspect sockpuppetry? It appears to be someone expanding references to U.S. Communications, rather than the unreasonable expansion that Tvtonightokc has been doing. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access needs revoking

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

---

The IP 2A02:C7D:4419:E400:80A8:9D60:3F42:56CA was blocked for personal attacks but keeps making PAs and vandalism on his talk page. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Seig Fritz as NOTHERE

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

---

Seig Fritz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requesting a NOTHERE block for Seig Fritz. Also consider POV, NPA, RGW, etc. in this screed on their talk page. See also this lovely POV and and the user's maligning of XLinkBot for undoing their edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"I have decided to fight wikipedia in hopes of either fixing it and making it responsible, accountable and credible if possible or exposing its criminal and civil fraud and eventually destroying it." "I will employ all forms of lawful action to either convince to reform or I will employ all forms of lawful action destroy Wikipedia and bankrupt it." Oy. Blocked. Talk page access will probably be next. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I didn't even notice the legal threats in [114]... stopped reading after "inner Nazi". Oy indeed. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Judith Butler article

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

---

IP editor 110.77.213.195 is making edits like this at Judith Butler. The offensive edit summary in that and other edits needs to be hidden per WP:REVDEL. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks FreeKnowledgeCreator. More disruption at Talk:Gender identity. I've blocked the master and IP and revdelled entries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Block Threat

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

---

C.Fred has been harassing me on my talk page about a template and making threats.

WinANotice (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

New account WinANotice (talk · contribs) is soliciting, at his talk page, the service described above. Can anybody think how that offer is in any way valid or in keeping with the Terms of Use? —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Page deleted (G11). Troll indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like a variant of the old, joking classified ad: "Send me a dollar and I'll tell you how I make money." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Stealth vandalism on Donald Trump

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

---

• Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See talk:Donald Trump#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2018. I can see a huge "Fuck Trump" image at the top of the page only while logged out and only with Firefox. Not Chrome nor Edge. Jim1138 (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I've fixed by purging the page..it showed up in chrome incognito. Only while logged out, which is strange. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It was vandalism to a template which had been reverted several hours before. Jim1138 (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why it only showed when logged out. Something with different cache? Because it got fixed when I purged the cache for the page, thus showing the fixed version of the template. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, logged out users get served from a cache while logged in users are served directly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that makes things so much harder to catch.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It was there for atleast an hour before even someone commented on the talk page - see this (kinda amusing) reddit post. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Wisal Ahmad and copyright

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

---

Wisal Ahmad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours back in December 2016 for adding copyright violations after multiple warnings. Unfortunately, this behaviour continues, with recent examples documented at User talk:Wisal Ahmad#Speedy deletion nomination of Hund Museum, User talk:Wisal Ahmad#Copyright problem: Archaeological Museum Umerkot, User talk:Wisal Ahmad#December 2017 and User talk:Wisal Ahmad#Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Article 62 & 63. I suggest that it is time to take further action to ensure that Wisal Ahmad complies with copyright law. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

He also excessively use unreliable sources as citations in the BLPs. --Saqib (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed with a note on how to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Edits by User:Indie Geek

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

This user continuously makes edits to video game articles which (some possibly others definitely) violate WP:OVERLINK. These have been their only edits since they joined a few days ago; they have not acknowledged my initial efforts to remind them of the guideline. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a user warning template series for MOS violations. Since you already gave a level-1 warning, I've now given a level-2 warning. Unless this is a long-term abuse case that I'm not recognizing (and I don't know most of them), I think this is a little early for ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Poland article - planned POV attack

• Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• United Union (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure how to initiate this issue because I've never come across such a situation, but in recent days user United Union has been edit warring on the Poland article — in short I reminded him of the 3RR rule regarding new text and asked him to initiate a discussion on the talk page. Unfortunately, my arguments were disregarded and a rather unsettling statement was made by user United Union [115]: "FYI, this article is set to receive quite a few improvements in near future." Based on this user's recent behavior and frequent sock-puppet problems on the Poland page, I'm concerned that this might be an organized and persistent POV attack on the article, I hope that I'm wrong, but I would request that Administrators look into this situation in order to avoid major disruption to the article. --E-960 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

E-960, please remember to notify editors you discuss here. I've done so for you this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Your words about 3RR are ironic, since United Union has not broken 3RR during this dispute, whereas you have (4 reverts between 22:46 27 Dec and 20:02 28 Dec). If you have any actual evidence of sockpuppetry, take it to SPI. Also, without any further evidence, your warnings of a massive impending POV assault sound like scaremongering. So far this seems like a standard editing dispute, and I suggest that both of you follow the usual dispute resolution procedures. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 23:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

BethNaught, I'm a bit disappointed by this response, since user United Union has been inserting this statement on the following 5 occasions [116], [117], [118], [119], and [120]. Also, given the current political situation in the real world, when you see a editor make such a comment, and it's marginalized on the incident board, I do lose faith in the Wikipedia project, because the Poland article is in no way bias, it tries to be neutral and I myself focused on improvments related to grammar, spelling, matching relevant images to text (the article was is extremely poor shape from a quality point of view and I myself did not bother adding anything political but focused on the quality aspect over the last year), yet more and more I see editors just pop in to add something related to issues in the news or obnoxious information (I think there is a possible motive behind it). --E-960 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• For example yesterday an editor on the Krakow page change Nazi German concentration camp to Polish concentration camp on that and three other pages, so excuse me if I feel unease when someone makes such a statement on the Poland page. Or, when the Polish Prime Minister had a car accident, a user in the following days added text related to traffic fatalities in Poland and that they were highest in the EU. Now, user United Union wants to include information on EU subsidies for Poland just when there is talk in the news that the commission wants to take them away, sorry but there was time since 2004 to add such information about it, so why exactly now? The Poland article still suffers from a lack of cohesion because exactly from this, editors just adding random trivia. --E-960 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see any relevance between what some other editors did on other articles with this particular issue. This seems like a content dispute to me (along with breaking the 3RR by the OP) BytEfLUSh ^Talk 00:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we agree that this is a content dispute that can be settled at Talk:Poland? If the edit war prolongs, it should be noted at WP:AN3. BytEfLUSh ^Talk 04:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t really see trying to blame the Poles instead of the nazis for the Holocaust as “just a content dispute.” There’s blame to be had all around, but there is no doubt that Auschwitz was run by the Germans. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course blaming the Poles for Auschwitz is an awful, despicable thing to do, and I'd revert the Nazi apologist and submit the case to whatever board is appropriate. I agree, such edits are serious incidents, there's no doubt about it. However, the OP in this case mentions such an edit (singular) as something that happened on another Poland-related article, made by some other editor. That made them uncomfortable and on the look-out for more vandalism (fully understood, such vile things should not happen on WP). However, the edit that this AN/I is about is something different: Should it be mentioned that Poland is the largest EU net beneficiary or not? That's what I meant by content dispute. BytEfLUSh ^Talk 04:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

IP sockpuppet

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

---

2602:306:31B4:1C10:BCA4:E10E:B104:EF75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be the latest IP of the user reported here. Eik Corell (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

They've been at it for a while. 2602:306:31b4:1c10:8000::/65 blocked six months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:POINTy POV-pushing by IP user at Dean Dunham

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

---

• Dean Dunham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 86.132.130.243 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• WP:POINT

This IP user has been pursuing an apparent attempt to create a negatively-slanted BLP for British "celebrity attorney" Dean Dunham. All their edits since Boxing Day have either been to this article, to a company which which the article subject was formerly associated, or to question other editors about their "connection" to the article subject. Flyer22 Reborn noted this behavior at the BLP noticeboard and new user Wolfe2017 was disturbed enough by the POV-pushing to both blank the page and post a helpme request to find out about page deletion.

This user is uncommunicative, not having used the talk page at all although there is a thread there about BLP violations. They also have used edit summaries a mere six times out of their 41 edits on this subject and their only user talk page contributions are to query another IP user, Wolfe2017, and myself about COI in the article. (For the record, I do not now nor have I every had a personal, professional, or any other type of relationship to Dean Dunham).

Their edits are to add mostly-unsourced or poorly-sourced negative BLP information such as adding information sourced to primary sources concerning business failures and adding guilt-by-association information supposedly about the subject's father with a source that does not mention the subject at all. They have also restored this after a reversion by another user without explanation) and again with a call to block another IP user after it was reverted as having failed verification.

I have warned this user at their user page, the article talk page and at Wolfe2017's talk page about BLP violations, disruptive editing, and harassing another user. They have apparently ignored these warnings. It is highly likely this user is the same as 86.11.49.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who made similar edits. They have continued similar activity even after the most recent level 3 warnings. While this does not appear to qualify for WP:AIV, it is clearly not in keeping with the BLP policy and has continued despite repeated warnings. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Edited to add: confirmation of notification Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Article semied for two weeks, IP advised to come here and reply or risk a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This looks similar to some disruption that I can't quite recall. I have to think about it a bit more before the details will come back to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I found it. It was on Chris Philp, a BLP. Sock puppets were repeatedly adding allegations about business failures. It's probably unrelated, but that's what I was thinking about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Eggishorn's assessment. A thank you to all who have helped with this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

As the IP can't post here, they've been directed to use the article's talk page. [121] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Alexandria1749 using racist language on Xenia, Ohio

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

---

• Alexandria1749 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xenia, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alexandria1749 keeps changing "African American" to "Colored". "Colored" is an offensive term (Colored#United States).

They have changed it 3 times:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenia,_Ohio&diff=prev&oldid=818109629
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenia,_Ohio&diff=prev&oldid=818130488
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenia,_Ohio&diff=prev&oldid=818132168

They were warned before their most recent edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexandria1749&oldid=818117023

Their response was "Who cares?": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexandria1749&diff=prev&oldid=818132357

Alexandria1749 and 74.140.205.15 appear to be the same person as they're making the same edits.

--ChiveFungi (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexandria1749 has been blocked 1 week for disruptive editing. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocked a week. Someone should go through the article and ensure the proper (sourced) terms are used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Concern about IP:119.30.38.147

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

---

• 119.30.38.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP:119.30.38.147 wrote abusive, insulting bad words on my talk page. IP wrote in Bengali but in English script! For understanding, I can explain some phrase, like: fucker, stupid etc, and s/he feels awful to look me! Also given the threat to change my personal style/getup!! All about abusive personal harassment and extremely flout to my personal life. I have concern and also ask for hiding this edit history and take necessary steps to that kind of stupidity. It is all over the personal issues where he mentioned Jimmy Wales and the other Wikipedian Nahid Sultan too. S/he also wrote the same thing on my Simple Wikipedia talk page. Where another IP address created an article about myself where all the information gathered from the personal website, social sites, IMDb link etc and which is kind of Copyvio and too much harassment. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

That consists of blatant Personal Attacks and borders on harrasment.And going by his own comments that he is intentionally socking, I would strongly advice for a CU.Winged Blades^Godric 16:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Taking Moheen Reeyad's word for it as to what the IP is saying, I concur. There's definitely something suspicious afoot, and a CU would be nice (understanding of course that CUs don't publicly disclose results for IPs). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 IP blocked. GAB^gab 16:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Copying from AIV and my talk page

Geographyinitiative Has been posting the below both on my talk page, and at AIV. This is something I have not dealt witih before. Can anyone here help? — Maile (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Posted on my talk page

There is a consistent multi-year pattern with this vandal of putting flags from European minor localities into unrelated stub class articles in Asian and African geography. Don't know how to help, but here's the list of the IP's I saw today.

121.205.49.126 223.104.45.102 219.133.46.12 219.133.46.78 219.133.46.9 219.133.46.8 219.133.46.7 223.104.45.100 223.104.45.104 223.104.45.99 223.104.45.97 219.133.46.74 219.133.46.75 219.133.46.73 219.133.46.70 121.207.74.55 117.24.123.12 120.42.184.160

Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Posted at AIV

• 121.207.74.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) There is a consistent pattern of vandalism where this vandal uses categories like County-level divisions of Fujian or County-level divisions of Henan and then puts flags unrelated to the subject matter into the article. This has apparently been going on since 2016. The vandal's other IPs: 121.205.49.126 223.104.45.102 219.133.46.12 219.133.46.78 219.133.46.9 219.133.46.8 219.133.46.7 223.104.45.100 223.104.45.104 223.104.45.99 223.104.45.97 219.133.46.74 219.133.46.75 219.133.46.73 219.133.46.70 121.207.74.55 Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• 117.24.123.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) There is a consistent pattern of vandalism where this vandal uses categories like County-level divisions of Fujian or County-level divisions of Henan and then puts flags unrelated to the subject matter into the article. This has apparently been going on since 2016. The vandal's other IPs: 121.205.49.126 223.104.45.102 219.133.46.12 219.133.46.78 219.133.46.9 219.133.46.8 219.133.46.7 223.104.45.100 223.104.45.104 223.104.45.99 223.104.45.97 219.133.46.74 219.133.46.75 219.133.46.73 219.133.46.70 121.207.74.55 117.24.123.12 Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• 120.42.184.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) There is a consistent pattern of vandalism where this vandal uses categories like County-level divisions of Fujian or County-level divisions of Henan and then puts flags unrelated to the subject matter into the article. This has apparently been going on since 2016. The vandal's other IPs: 121.205.49.126 223.104.45.102 219.133.46.12 219.133.46.78 219.133.46.9 219.133.46.8 219.133.46.7 223.104.45.100 223.104.45.104 223.104.45.99 223.104.45.97 219.133.46.74 219.133.46.75 219.133.46.73 219.133.46.70 121.207.74.55 117.24.123.12 120.42.184.160 Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: Geographyinitiative The first two have not edited since 2016, and the third one not since October 2017. There's not anything we can do here at AIV. If you have concerns about the patterns and the other IPs, you might find more of an answer by opening a discussion at WP:ANI Perhaps asking for range blocks. — Maile (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• If it'll help anyone's investigation, I have an additional data point for this kind of behavior from an IP from just a few days ago: 121.205.48.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was doing this between December 23 and 26. Reported to AIV and blocked with the comment "Long-term abuse". Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• That looks like Special:Contributions/219.133.46.0/24 and Special:Contributions/223.104.45.0/24. Those are already range blocked. The newest one looks like Special:Contributions/121.205.48.0/23, but it could be an /18. I'll block the /23 and see what happens. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Note: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Szm020730, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Szm020730 i.e. the flag vandal. Also commons:Category:Sockpuppets of Szm020730. There's an edit filter that should deal with this but it probably needs updating. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 17:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Report about User: SouthernResidentOreca

The user named SouthernResidentOreca supported the addition of repetitive information on the Koenigsegg Agera article and while having a discussion on the matter, used foul language. U1Quattro (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, after much searching, it looks like you're talking about this. The Moose 08:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

We're for the most part all grown-ups here; that's not "foul language". It's on the borderline of civility, but not "foul". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes but he should've refrained from that when all that was done was a rational edit. U1Quattro (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and it can be shocking and hurtful when people are even mildly insulting about good-faith edits. On the other hand, this is the internet, and that's what happens on the internet -- people can be irritable and rude. I recommend ignoring personal comments such as that; even if they rise to the level of personal attacks or incivility. I've found that calling the person out, or taking the bait, or rising to the challenge, or fighting fire with fire, only aggravates the problem. What works best is just to completely ignore people's irritability or rudeness, and instead either let them have the last word, or, if more discussion about content needs to occur, comment only about content and edits, and do not even mention the other editor(s) or even use the word "you". Discuss edits and content, not editors or behavior. This takes discipline, but if you make it a habit, it will serve you well here. Uncivil behavior only rises to the level of noticeboard reporting if it is very repetitive, serious, and longterm. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Very well put. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Dumbass advice. EEng 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• By the way, U1Quattro, your edit summaries are either non-existent, grossly inadequate, or very misleading [122]. Please make sure that you thoroughly and clearly explain each of your edits via the edit summary. In addition, you should not have removed the information from Koenigsegg Agera that you did, and I have now restored it: [123]. Please also make sure that you discuss controversial changes on the talkpage of the article, rather than on user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Odd activity at Lyndhurst, New Jersey

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

---

Would appreciate some additional eyes on the activity on Lyndhurst, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There are a couple different issues taking place at the same time - all starting within the past 24 hours to a page that had been pretty quiet for months; I have no idea if they are related, or coincidental overlap in timing.

User Alexmchoward (talk · contribs) has been inserting large-scale changes, which seem to be done to hide minor vandalism. For example, multiple edits insert a claim the area is part of the "Confederate States of America"[124][125]; or inserting a claim of the community being a "fictional place"[126].

Meanwhile, other users such as 100.40.186.45 (talk · contribs) and JohnTheBomb (talk · contribs) have been attempting to add a youtube personality to the "notable persons", sourcing only to the page for "K-rad memes".

While one of these is clearly vandalism; the other may be good faith edits by someone not familiar with Wikipedia sourcing requirements. I considered taking this to WP:RFPP, but decided to take it here for additional thoughts due to the unusual timing of both disruptions starting near the same time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: While I was typing the above, Muboshgu (talk · contribs) semi-protected the page for three days. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone else took it to RFPP, where I saw it. I took a quick look and thought the page could use a cool down that encourages talk page discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Note #2: It appears both named accounts, plus a third one have now all been blocked as sockpuppets by a checkuser; I knew something didn't feel right, but hadn't expected that. With all accounts blocked and the page semi-protected, I think this thread can be closed now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Sonrisas1 disrupting a talk page to make a point

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

---

• Catalan independence movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sonrisas1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sonrisas1 opened a section at Talk:Catalan independence movement headed Supremacism and Xenophobia. This is a fringe political view that has already been rejected by the community twice, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalan supremacism and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Catalan Racism, both in November 2017. However, it quickly became clear that the "proposal" is only to make a point in an edit-war with another editor CodeInconnu, at Citizens (Spanish political party) (see history), which is accompanied by a particularly nasty shouting match at Talk:Citizens (Spanish political party)#"Alternative views" Section. Sonrisas1 has never made any secret of the fact that the Catalan independence movement "proposal" is only to make a point about the "Alternative views" section in the other article, yet he continues to disrupt the talk page despite repeated requests to stop.

• On the Citizens talk page at 11:00, 30 December 2017 he said, There are plenty of sources describing nationalist parties in Catalonia as Supremacist parties. Can we have that as an "alternative views" section? If the answer is no. This section goes because it is POV. Sixteen minutes later, at 11:16, 30 December 2017, he opened the "Supremacism and Xenophobia" thread at Talk:Catalan independence movement, with Particularly interesting in the context of there being a "Alternative views" section in Ciudadanos [Citizens] article accusing the most voted party in Catalonia of being far right.
• His next post at Talk:Catalan independence movement: My point there is exactly that. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thank you. I would thus ask you to support me on removing the "alternative views" section in the Ciudadanos article.
• Next, Yes, Im making a point.
• Next, editors here forbid any reference to criticism in the article on the Catalan independence movement...Simultaneously, the article on Ciudadanos, the most voted party in Catalonia, has a section on "alternative views"...
• Next, It is a discussion on whether we should have "criticism" sections on these articles, what the policy is and consistency across them.
• Next, I cannot separate one issue from the other. The question is whether in articles on Spanish political parties or movements (including this one) we should have a section where to dump all the criticism and accusations by opposition and opposing media, which is quite extreme in all cases... (emphasis added)
• And the latest, since there articles on anti-independence parties have criticism sections pretty much accusing them of being fascists on very flimsy (borderline surreal) grounds and with very weak sources, I propose, out of consistency to have a "Criticism" section here based on any of the following sources: The "sources" are all opinion pieces in partisan Spanish news organisations, which Sonrisas1 knows are not reliable sources for this kind of content.
• Throughout the discussion, Sonrisas1 has never argued for the addition of a new section on its own merits.

I have brought Sonrisas's attention to WP:POINT and asked him to stop his disruption here, here and on his talk page here. I also suggested alternative pages where he might have a centralised discussion, offered him instructions on how to start an RfC at Citizens (Spanish political party), and even offered to start it myself if he wanted. He hasn't started an RfC, but he did refuse to participate at DRN on the grounds that "The avenue for this at this stage is Request for Comment"! My offers of help only led him to escalate his POINTy campaign at Talk:Catalan independence movement (see his latest edit above).
All of Sonrisas's edits – to articles and talk pages – are related to the current crisis in Catalonia. They are all highly political, highly combative and frequently abusive. He appears to have no grasp of core policies such as NPOV and RS. He recently had a block for edit-warring. There has to be a serious suspicion that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Scolaire (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Apparent IP vandal and/or sock is back

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

---

184.147.29.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked a few days ago and is back with the same edits again. May need the same treatment and mass rollback. Ravensfire (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank ya, good sir! Ravensfire (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Nasalies1986

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

---

Nasalies1986 has only made three edits. The first (in 2017) was REVDEL'd. The other two made today might be candidates for REVDEL. By calling a non-binary person "she", they've also walked into discretionary sanctions territory.

They've had a recent warning from ClueBot, but they don't need a warning to know that the edits they're making are unacceptable.

Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Charming. Indeffed and edits revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal

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

---

The above, who has a long history of blocking for inserting unnecessary and inaccurate changes to people, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal has re-surfaced as 81.136.38.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the same area of the UK (Bradford/Leeds), with the usual unexplained and unsourced changes - which have now been deleted by various editors. Obvious usual block evasion. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Neil. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Bosley John Bosley

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

---

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

Could I have an uninvolved admin assess potential personal attacks issued by User:Bosley John Bosley? The edit summaries here and here as well as the edit here may be construed as personal attacks. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tavix. I came here to make such a request myself. I do indeed take "racist goon" as a personal attack. I should also like to mention that Bosley John Bosley seems to be waging a one-man crusade to change information on the essay. There's nothing wrong with holding a minority opinion—I have some myself—but one must understand when one does, and act accordingly, to be a successful member of this community. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I regret my spelling mistake. Another racist idiot who hasn't managed to correct the grammatical error. Consensus...my arse. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Aaand blocked for 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Tavix, please remember to notify editors you discuss here. I've done so for you this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, "rascist goon" [sic] should probably be construed as a personal attack, but I don't see it as being part of a pattern of abuse at this point. I'd hope a warning would suffice. Perhaps a greater issue is their having created Klimaatverandering in the first place. If their usage of it in a reference here is in good faith then its seems to blow a hole in the essay, IMO. Although it should be noted that adding 4 characters to create a wikilink around the term is that user's only edit on that page and was done in the midst of edit warring the essay, so it seems more likely IMO that they're just trying to make a WP:POINT. Some discussion is in order here, methinks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but I see he talked himself into a block while I was typing that. Well, so be it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

what is going on in the filter log? spambot?

Someone is trying to create an account by the name of 加扣扣⑥⑤⑥⑤⑨⑨⑨⑥④彩票计划软件包中可免费测试哦稚栈 every 1.2 seconds, see the filter log[127]. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect this is some sort of spambot, and enabled the filter as an emergency measure. It has already created a whole pile of accounts. The filter is bordering on exceeding its limit, so I would appreciate it if someone more competent than me could transfer this to the title blacklist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I created a similar filter (minus the spambot clutter) here[128], to get around the spambot clutter when doing counter vandalism Tornado chaser (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Are these accounts using the same IP or IP range? Maybe a hardblock on the range can serve the purpose if the filter blows up. (Maybe not, there should be a cap of 6 new accounts per day for same IP, but if they are from same range, then a rangeblock might still work out) -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 17:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a mega-range, so range blocks are not a real possibility, unless we get seriously annoyed by it. The title blacklist would be the easiest way to stop it cluttering the filter log. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Usernames need to go on the global blacklist. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we need a meta-admin to do that. I've posted at meta:User talk:Billinghurst requesting help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Posted a request to m:Talk:Title blacklist#Chinese username spambot as well. —MRD2014 ^Talk 19:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I bet that's a QQ number or something similar encoded like that to hide it from something that'd detect QQ numbers just from digits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The string has been added to global title blacklist: meta:Special:Diff/17591324. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm totally unknowledgeable about any of this, so please forgive what may be a naive question: should all the accounts that were created be indef blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Should already have been globally locked. If you find there's any account missed, just feel free to request them to be locked at meta. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added a string that should stop them to the global blacklist, but it's not stopping them. My regex is a bit rusty, so maybe one of my two additions is incorrect (see here). You could add the string to the local blacklist and see if it has immediate effect. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ajraddatz. I don't fully understand the timing of that, but the accounts seem to have stopped as of 20:11. Only 4,000 attempts in four hours. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I could be totally wrong, but when adding an entry to the global blacklist, the local wikis would have some caches so it might take a few minutes to take effect? -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Could be. I guess we'll wait and see if they try to bypass the blacklist. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Mohammad bin Salman

An anonymous editor/editors (different ips, maybe the same person, though) keeps changing basic info at the Mohammad bin Salman article. Maybe lock to ip editing for a day or two? PaulCHebert (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

They've done it 4x since yesterday, from different IPv6 addresses each time, looks too broad for a rangeblock but maybe someone more knowledgeable in those things will say otherwise. I think semi would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@PaulCHebert and Mendaliv: The IP is messing about with the birthdate. The problem is that a translation of the source in unclear: "The minister of defense and the head of the royal court, Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, born in 1985, is the youngest minister in the new government, where he is thirty years old, contrary to information on the site "Wikipedia", he was born in 1980, which Some foreign newspapers say he is 35 years old." There's no month/day there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well caught. I agree with the resolution: Pull the DoB entirely until we get something definitive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Could use an admin eye at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

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

---

• Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

See Special:Contributions/2600:8800:1800:E970:8AC:B8DA:F739:5508. IP disruptively pushing more "it's not debunked!" complaints at talk, edit warring them back in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved and I've got an eyeball on it. A Train^talk 22:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(ANI is protected, moving comment from request on WT:AN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC))
As i stated on the Seth Rich talk page, the reference listed did not show that law enforcement debunked the conspiracy theory. Clearly this statement upsets you, I am not sure why. The police stated that these claims are unfounded. That means that there is no evidence to support these claims. Debunked means its not true. No one knows why Seth Rich was murdered. Clearly wikipedia doesn't care that the article here reflects that though. 2600:8800:1800:E970:8AC:B8DA:F739:5508 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

AN/I is for discussion of behavioral problems, not for determination of content disputes, so please do not continue to make content points here -- make them on the article talk page.

And, incidentally, "to debunk" does not mean "to prove false", it means "to show the falseness or hollowness of a myth, idea, or belief". There are many things in this world which it is nearly impossible to prove false, but a claim which has been shown to have no supporting evidence has indeed been "debunked". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I've always wanted to know... if I prove something has an evidentiary basis, am I bunking it? EEng 23:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

To "debunk" means "to take the bunk out".[129] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, my university dormmate asked maintenance to debunk our beds once. They didn't do a very good job considering there was plenty of evidence the beds were still there afterwards. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, who put the bunk there in the first place? EEng 23:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I admit it... It was me. And I would have gotten away with it to, if it weren't for you meddling kids. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(To take the bunkum out?) I'm uninvolved too, and I've been observing the article and the talkpage. Note that it was because of the same person's blatant edit warring on 27 December from the IP 2600:8800:1800:e970:c49e:af82:db7e:7de0 that the article had to be semiprotected. That was pretty disruptive, and earned them a 48-hour block. Now they have been using two other IPs, 2600:8800:1800:E970:2433:B3F1:6391:92F6 and 2600:8800:1800:e970:8ac:b8da:f739:5508, to disrupt the talkpage instead, by insisting on editing a closed discussion, and using the page as a soapbox. Please note, it's not the user's fault that the IP keeps changing, but the fact remains, all three IPs represent the same person. I've just warned them that if they keep disrupting Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, I'll block the 2600:8800:1800:E970::/64 range — not just a few single IPs — which will hopefully take care of it. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC).

Yes, "to take the bunkum [Buncombe] out". One of those cases where a politician's words were remembered long after the politician himself became irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Add that to the list of things I've learned today. A Train^talk 00:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Me too, actually. Who says Wikipedia is not educational? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly (to me, anyways) is the fact that "bunk" as slang for "bad" or "without merit" is still being used today, despite being centuries old. I overheard some teenagers complaining about how bunk some rap song was, a few days ago, and I've used it more than once myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Kind of a cousin to "humbug",[130] which means "fraud" and is seldom heard today except in re-readings of A Christmas Carol and in The Wizard of Oz movie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hogwash! I use the word unremittingly. Now I must be off to fill my conveyance with petroleum distillate, and re-vulcanize my tires, post-haste... nagualdesign 00:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Take note, though, that use of "bunk" may just as easily be derived from the use of bunco to refer to any fixed game, and then later to any swindle. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the most famous use of the word “bunk” is in the phrase “history is bunk” attributed to Henry Ford who actually said “history is more or less bunk”. Ford pointed out that the leaders who had started World War I knew lots of history but still ended up starting that war. Ford had a point there, but many of his other ideas were total bunk. Nice car company though. It seems that the “Murder of Seth Rich” article has become less a history of that murder than an article about the bunk that grew up around it and the debunking that grew up around that bunk. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions like this is one of the reasons I love this place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions like this just make me want about a dozen shots of Jäger. I came here to escape the cesspool of modern journalism, not to embrace it. John from Idegon (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Modern journalism is not a cesspool, modern politics is; journalism (at least real journalism) just reports on the shit in the cesspool, they didn't put it there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha, people aren't angry about lawyers anymore. [grins in legalese] —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bunco squad is a fraud investigation police unit (and a 1950 TV show. Neonorange (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"Bunko" was also the name of my pet turtle in fifth grade. To be fair, he was full of it. You couldn't believe a word he said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

And when Paul McCartney's "grandfather" in A Hard Days Night, Wilfrid Brambell, goes to a casino and plays Baccarat, he calls out "Bingo!" instead of the proper "Banco!". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Getting further into left field, in the 1950s the Chicago Cubs for a while had Ernie Banks at short, Gene Baker at second, and Steve Bilko at first, for a double-play combination Cubs announcer Bert Wilson called "Bingo to Bango to Bilko". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Me and my big mouth. EEng 15:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

incorrect site notice

We currently have an incorrect site notice, purportedly linking to Wikimania 2018 but actually linking to 2017. I'd try and resolve it myself but am on a very restrictive mobile device at present. ϢereSpielChequers 10:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I presume WSC is referring to this notice Meta:Special:CentralNoticeBanners/edit/wm2018scholarcfp. You should be able to see a preview of it using this link [131]. As far as I can tell, the notice itself is probably right. It's the scholarship application page which hasn't been properly updated [132]. On the top part, including the picture, the date and location and name of Wikimania 2017 are mentioned. Then at the end of the blurb there's a link to the 2016 FAQ. Later on, in the application itself "This year for Wikimania 2016" and it also includes a link to [133] so I'm guessing it's not a typo. Then at the end it has "Do you intend to apply to any local Chapter / other movement organization(s) for scholarship funding to Wikimania 2018" and "Wikimania 2018's theme is focusing on supporting underrepresented voices and filling knowledge gaps in our movement". So parts of the page haven't been updated since 2017, parts haven't been updated since 2016 and parts have been updated for 2018. I assume if you use the form you'll be applying for scholarships for 2018, but it's very confusing. This probably isn't the best place to discuss it though. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually it's only like that for en-gb [134]. En [135] is fine. Other languages have their own weird mixes. E.g. even in the top part, some have nothing updated, some have the logo updated but the description below is outdated, some have the description below updated but the logo is outdated, some have both updated. I didn't even bother to look at the text of the form itself. Probably someone with translator rights from translatewiki.net could fix this, but that isn't me. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Mass creation of probable spam bot accounts

This report at AIV coupled with Edgar181's link to this edit filter report suggests that multiple accounts are being created using non-English symbols, likely for nefarious purposes. I'm not sure what can or should be done here. This may be an issue for our more tech savvy editors/admins. [Note: For obvious reasons I am not going to post ANI notices on all these accounts.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem There was a long discussion about this with stewards yesterday (and somewhere on meta.) The blacklist globally has been updated but because they change the pattern daily, they're likely to start getting through again. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

User assuming article ownership

Hello. A user is assuming ownership of the article List of wars involving Latvia [136]. This is after I have invited them to discuss suggestions on how to improve the article on the article talk page and on the user talk page. I am taking a step back from this situation. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I left a note on Fuziion's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Note didn't take. Blocked 24 hours. Hoping for a response to my question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD

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

---

AFD closed. TomBarker23 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Could an admin close this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nurzaidi Bunari as the article has been already deleted, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Not sure what to make of this

BLOCKED:

SPI case over. Archived. Blocked in <16 minutes. Kinda ironic, no? --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 19:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Could someone please check out the recent history of LED art (since revision 818611384 at 15:30 UTC today)? This appears to be the beginning of a sock farm trying to build up edit counts in order to become auto-confirmed. Is this a thing that Wikipedia should be discouraging? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Already handled. Also, SPI filed (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/16minutesoffame. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, all blocked. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Revdel request

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

---

For a distasteful edit summary. [137]. Dawnseeker2000 21:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Gurneyslaves44 and Geoff Davis

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

---

User:Gurneyslaves44 appears to be a VOA, having made these 4 edits so far[138][139][140][141]. User:Geoff Davis's only edit so far was this[142] edit to Gurneyslaves44's talk page, which could be interpreted as a vandalism warning or a threat. I have notified both users but they will not be able to respond as ANI is protected Tornado chaser (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that those two accounts were created 16 minutes apart. Gurneyslaves44's last edit diffed here (to Gurney family (Norwich)) strongly suggests a failure of the WP:ATTACKNAME usernames policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Gurneyslaves44 username blocked indef. Geoff Davis had this edit caught by the filter which suggests they're here to play games with their friend. Also blocked indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

See Wikipedia:Help desk#The multiplication table pattern section violate my copyright & IP in US. Clear violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats by Benson tan at work. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Referring to this diff, I assume, at the end of the wall of text, specifically " Last but NOT least, please provide the contact info so that I can ask my lawyer to contact you. Thanks"? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support blocking - No objections to unblocking providing they retract it and stop with the threats. –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• User was blocked unnecessarily by User:Alex Shih, but since the user doesn't have any friends here, I imagine there won't be an uproar this time. I'll go try to act like a human being on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There was nothing unnecessary about it - They made a threat and were blocked for it. –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll make an excellent sheep. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Floquenbeam How's it unnecessary? They've made threats to get lawyers involved, which is a clear legal threat. And they're still doing it here. And they've already been given the advice on the proper way to contact Wiki about alleged copyright. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats#Copyright. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Simply saying that something might be a copyright infringement is, I would agree, not a legal threat. But that's not why they were blocked; they were blocked for threatening to get their lawyer involved, which is a legal threat. SkyWarrior 20:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Classic; close a thread where your own behavior is questionable. Truly classic WP behavior. It's not turtles, it's brick walls all the way down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, supporting a block is downright questionable behaviour and as such I should be hung, drawn and quartered - Please feel free to start a new request here on how I'm such a bad editor for supporting a block of an obvious legal threat. –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Does User:Benson tan at work know how to contest his indef block? Or will he just have to go ask his lawyer? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Floq was kind enough to reach and explain how to contest the unblock, and the possible violation of his copyright on Benson Tan's talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

And he's still making legal threats even now:[143] "I can pass that info to my lawyer to seek the solution" and "Wikipedia may have its own rule, but it should still fit into US law as I know" Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Goodness me, Floq, that sounds like politeness and common decency. What's this place coming to. Um, "Wikipedia may have its own rule, but it should still fit into US law as I know" - is that an outrageously threatening statement or just a plain fact? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to say I've undone the close and will allow this to be reclosed by someone else, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Is the block being challenged now? It's clearly a good NLT block. They're not just threatening to get lawyers involved to enforce their copyright (which they've declined to pursue through the proper channels after being informed how to do so), they've explicitly inquired as to how to go about taking legal action against a particular user in the interest of getting money from them. They're being talked at by a couple of users on their talk page now but they're close to having that access revoked as well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I must have missed the part about "legal action against a particular user in the interest of getting money from them". Could you copy that part here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't see how any block for legal threats could be accurately described as "necessary", a good idea, perhaps, but necessary? Necessary for what exactly? Paul August ☎ 21:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123, does this count? "How to ask my lawyer to contact you guys? In addition, if the result is impact my right, I will ask your page hits multiply by $10 for each then" As established, English isn't his first language, but that seems pretty much an intention to try and get money from somebody... Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, somebody. But who exactly? That looks to me pretty much like exaggeration and fantasy to me, rather than a coherent "legal threat". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think the points are moot now. I've expressed my thoughts about my block here. Alex Shih (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• That seems fair and balanced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Irrelevant to the actual block, but that method diagram was known when I started teaching some 20+ years ago, and I doubt very much if a mathematical method could actually be patented anyway. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems the U.S. Patent Office agrees with you: Shearonink observed that the patent application was not accepted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

So we can all agree that a legal action is not possible in this case? The editor is somewhat misguided. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not quite sure how you deal with a legal threat that's not viable, but on the other hand the only mainspace edit that the editor has made is to delete the "violating" item in the article anyway, so I don't think we need to expend too much time on whether it's an NLT or not. If the editor is unblocked, are they going to provide anything positive? Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that the viability of a legal threat should be our concern, since that would require us all to be lawyers in order to evaluate its credibility. The important thing about legal threats -- and why they shouldn't be overlooked -- is their ability to create a chilling effect among other editors, which is detrimental to the improvement of the encyclopedia. Of course, not overlooking a legal threat doesn't necessarily mean blocking on sight: as WP:DOLT suggests, explaining the situation to the editor first and giving them a reasonable chance to retract the threat would seem to be the optimal course of action. If the editor refuses, or doubles down, then a block is certainly called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As BMK above - the term itself is "No legal threat", not "No legal action" - whether any action would be successful is not the point, the point is that threats have been made. And in this case, apparent legal threats have been continuously made even after the block - which was for legal threats - was made, and the reason for the block was made plain. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk about a boomerang!

I think Joseph2302 should be blocked for starting a threat [144]. EEng 06:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC) P.S. I'm glad to see that people are beginning to think about legal situations instead of everyone freaking out at the drop of a hat. (Not taking a position on this particular block.)

I can't decide if you deserve a good-humored trouting or a kudos for this. It made me giggle either way. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well if you're in the mood to be accommodating, I like it best when Nanny puts me over her knee and spanks me on the bot-bot. EEng 07:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Frequent WP:NPA violations, etc.

Within Talk:Absolute value (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs), there seems to be frequent attempts to label me as in the complete wrong while making the vague accusations that they happen to be within the right. They're even going so far as to do personal attacks, stating things such as me "lacking competences at handling this type of article", claiming that I don't have the best of intentions within handling the article, etc.

I tried several times trying to resolve it. While I'm not trying to justify myself here, what I do know is what they're doing isn't really how Wikipedia should be handled. Meanwhile, D.Lazard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be specifically targeting me under the pretense that I am violating rules myself, such as WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, etc. This, even in spite of the fact that discussion was never a content dispute to begin with. He also reverted several of my edits under that pretense as well; when I pointed out WP:IGNORE within an edit reason, he brings forth WP:DISRUPT.

Someone even made as though they've protected the article, although I can see at this point that it's not. Even so, I believe it's wise for now that I don't edit that page due to them having problems with me. Even if I know I'm in the wrong (and I genuinely don't), that doesn't really give everyone the right to bully me like this.

As an addendum, some of the problems mentioned here seem to have extended to my talk page as well. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Karjam, you need to stop talking about other editors' behavior and discuss only content (nothing else). That's what everyone on that talkpage has been trying to tell you. If the consensus is against you, the consensus is against you. Wikipedia operates by consensus. Your recourse if you do not like the current consensus is (A) to continue to argue your case for the content/version/text that you want, or (B) to engage some form of dispute resolution -- but it all has to be properly and neutrally done, and it needs to avoid mention of other editors or their behavior. Softlavender (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Some diffs would be helpful. Neither I nor anyone else here wants to wade through a long series of talk page discussions to get to the offending comments here. I will say that at a glance, it feels like neither your conduct nor Purgy Purgatorio's conduct has been perfect. I agree with Joel B. Lewis's general assessment of the situation: You both need to lay off the personalities. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: As I am cited by the nominator, I must recall here the history of the case. This began on November, 30 when Karjam started edit warring on Absolute value (9 similar edits from November 30 to December 9, reverted by 4 different editors). Another editor stopped this on November by protecting the article. Since December 9, he did not edit anymore the article (even after the end of the protection), but he started a lengthy discussion at Talk:Absolute value#The formula about the behavior of other editors (never about the article and its content). None of the 8 editors who have participate to this discussion has supported Karjam complaints, until Joel B. Lewis closed it. Nevertheless, Karjam tried to unclose this out-of-topic discussion, and to restart it. This was the object of my reverts (here is the last one). I have warned him two times on his talk page for disruptive editing. This seems a case for WP:BOOMERANG. D.Lazard (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Absolute value has never been protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not read correctly this edit. Protection has been applied for, but declined by this edit. D.Lazard (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't agree that a boomerang is warranted here. I think Karjam is clearly frustrated but not without reason. I'm not saying Karjam is right in anything (the merits of the disagreement are outside my scope of expertise), but I think the talk directed at Karjam at some points crosses the line between explanation and condescending (e.g., [145], [146]), and at some point becomes WP:BATTLEGROUNDish (e.g., this edit summary calling for someone to "take over", i.e., take over reverting Karjam). It's pretty obvious from the edits and the comments that Karjam is an editor without much experience on Wikipedia, even though his account is over 7 years old. The entirety of handling things at the talk page strikes me as violating WP:BITE. Especially the focusing on Karjam's idiosyncratic use of "Guys," to open most comments. Particularly given the dispute centers on grammar and readability, one would hope that the more experienced editors would understand that Karjam's grammatical idiosyncrasies weren't intended to offend and simply ask politely that he avoid it since not every editor is male (though I frankly suspect the annoyance at it was more because of its flippant connotations, like "dude").
  My summary of this dispute: Karjam is a relatively inexperienced editor with fewer than 300 edits in over 7 years on Wikipedia. He went to Absolute value and tried to make some very basic changes to improve the flow of the article, though he characterized them as being grammatical fixes. Those were reverted persistently. So persistently, in fact, that when Karjam mistakenly unbalanced a parenthesis in one edit, that edit was reverted so quickly that when he went to fix it himself, resulting in another unbalanced parenthesis. When discussion at the talk page finally got underway, it quickly devolved into suggesting that Karjam's education was flawed, or that he lacked the competence to edit Wikipedia because of an edit summary. I don't blame Karjam for getting frustrated.
  So, no, I don't think a boomerang is appropriate here. I don't think this is something that requires WP:NPA sanctions or any direct admin activity, but it definitely doesn't require a boomerang. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Mendaliv: your summary misses the facts that (1) the text has been edited in response to the initial Karjam edits, and (2) Karjam has been persistently unable to make any statement on the talkpage about the article (rather than about editor behavior). --JBL (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• My assessment: On 30 November, Karjam appeared at Absolute value and began making unilateral undiscussed changes to a widely viewed article, and continued to do so through 9 December [147], edit-warring with a variety of editors including Joel B. Lewis, David Eppstein, D.Lazard, and Purgy Purgatorio. Purgy Purgatorio succinctly characterized the problems with Karjam's changes in this 10 December article-talk post: [148]. On 9 December Karjam stopped edit-warring on the article but brought his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior to the talkpage instead: [149]. He has received numerous usertalk warnings from four different experienced editors about this Talk:Absolute value talkpage battleground behavior: [150]. I don't know what the solution is except to ask Karjam to back off or face a topic ban from this article. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I would add is that Karjam does not appear to understand the meaning of the phrase "discuss article content" as a practical matter -- possibly having this explained by a neutral administrator, under threat of block, would help? --JBL (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Karjam: You need to step away from Absolute value voluntarily. I understand how you feel, but any "bullying" was brought on by your own stubborn and persistent push against a consensus of editors who are more experienced than you. It doesn't matter how "right" you think you are. You have to learn how to collaborate on Wikipedia or you will continue to have problems. I don't think a block is in order; nor do I think I need to threaten you with a block. If you leave the article and the Talk page alone, a topic ban won't be necessary. If not, my assumption is we will be back here with editors proposing a topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

[following comment added, per talk page edit request: -- Begoon 05:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)]:
Thanks for telling me about WP:BATTLEGROUND. I know I was being a bit... harsh in my tone of voice there. As I've said, I'm never justifying myself, since I didn't know if I am in the wrong. Even if I was, however, I'm willing to learn from my own mistakes.

Let me just point out; I couldn't really discuss anything related to the article, itself, since it would get interpreted as not really being related to the article's content. Seriously, now, people seem to have trouble telling a difference between an aside comment and one that's making an attack towards the others. As what can be seen on my own talk page, back when I was still violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, I've said I had a genuine reason to call the others "fools", but I held back; this was interpreted as as an indirect attack by someone, even though it's not meant to be such. (Look, I know how derogative that phrase really is, but it doesn't change the fact that it's meant to be an explanation instead.)

And then there's the fact that it seems the others had unilaterally agreed that my own grammar is bad and that their own grammar is the best. Read "Since you've asked..." under that article, for instance. (And then, there goes my tendency to misread everything, causing misunderstandings interpreted as a personal attack, making me no different than those who accuse me of such.)

I also wasn't planning on editing that article for a while due to these issues. You are right, I am inexperienced. But, there's nothing wrong with me gaining that experience on the go, learning from my mistakes, no matter how costly. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Brich627

Newbie-ish editor Brich627 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added substantial content in at least 35 edits today with misleading summaries such as "Added links" and "Fixed typo." At least some of these edits are clear BLP violations (e.g. unsourced content falsely saying that Rebekah Mercer owns a majority of Breitbart News). I'm hoping that someone can rollback their edits and give them a stern warning on BLP and honest editing practices. Note that these articles are part of post-1932 AP and as such are subject to DS. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There is something odd going on here. I went to this user's talk page to leave a warning for adding unsourced content and found that this discussion had been started. This user is adding content to numerous pages about "investor and Texas billionaire energy scion Christopher Sullivan Richardson" to numerous pages. See here for an example. The first issue is that this user is misleadingly adding new content in front of existing citations. The stranger issue is that I'm not even sure "Christopher Sullivan Richardson" is a real person. This might be WP:HOAX territory. A search for "Christopher Sullivan Richardson" pulls up barely anything, and the first result is a Wikipedia article. Surely if this individual is a billionaire there would be more information about him? I'm not sure he even exists. Anyway, I'll keep reverting the unsourced edits as this gets sorted out. Marquardtika (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, we know that at least one of his edits was completely and verifiably false. See http://www.sullivancity.org/history/. General Ization ^Talk 19:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't find anything about "Christopher Sullivan Richardson", an alleged billionaire, anywhere on the web. No one with 10 figures before the decimal point can remain that anonymous. This is starting to look like a NOTHERE account. I have posted a warning on their talk page but my finger is hovering over the block button. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed as NOTHERE. I have however left their TP editing rights intact in case they want to respond to the issues raised here. But the evidence looks pretty damning to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• They are a sock. The other account is HBass214 (talk · contribs · count). This edit by HBass214, which I've reverted, may explain the Sullivan Richardson obsession. Someone might want to take a look at HBass214's other edits to see if they need removing. There aren't that many.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Also IPsocks 2600:100C:B00D:CF49:AD71:8FCD:6F6D:DE4B (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2602:306:8081:d2a0:43c:a241:383d:39b7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:100C:B004:5863:B506:B8DB:AFDD:E56D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2600:100C:B027:919A:28D8:14F3:4E52:D214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). General Ization ^Talk 21:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• And another sock: Hbass214817 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). General Ization ^Talk 21:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  Good catch.  Confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the link listed by Bbb23 above ([151]) list "Daniel Joseph Sullivan IV (1934-2006)" as the "Billionaire owner of the Mariposa Ranch", and the Mariposa Ranch website [152] says that "the Mariposa Ranch has remained in the Sullivan Family for over 110 years. Daniel J. Sullivan, V continues the legacy..." So there may be a combination of fact and fiction here -- and perhaps some score-settling between the Sullivans and the Richardsons? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: another apparent sock adding content on the same material as above: 2600:100C:B029:D1E0:ACDA:8964:C43E:82E1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Marquardtika (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:CoilerCorp and suspected sockpuppets

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

---

Was created to edit an article about that company: [153], two other accounts were created to make promotional edits about that company: [154] [155] They could be active at any time, just as Blackwongpcc [156] User talk:Blackwongpcc and his PCCooler article. Pancho507 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Here's more evidence: [157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166]Pancho507 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Deleted the article (it was an obvious G11 as well as being effectively unsourced, and I'm surprised it's lasted 18 months), and blocked CoilerCorp for obvious username breaches, though they haven't edited since then and I doubt they'll see it. I've left the other three accounts alone as they haven't edited since 2007, 2008 and 2015 respectively and don't have username issues. Black Kite (talk)

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

COPYVIO after final warning

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

---

User:Wright Lee's draft Draft:Engagement gifts was rejected by User:David.moreno72 twice on Dec 2. and 3rd for COPYVIO. It seems the page was recreated on Dec. 3 after being deleted and a final warning was issued User_talk:Wright_Lee#Copyright_violation_final_warning. I just nominated the same draft for G12 as it seems to have been recreated a third time with same COPYVIO. SeraphWiki (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Offensive comments on user's own talk page

This seems to be dealt with. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Please see User talk:PBadali#North America isn't my choice! (permalink for version as of my posting: [167]) for what I took to be antisemitic comments. I (sternly) asked PBadali to remove the comments citing these concerns (and that it was outside the scope of talk pages as he wasn't talking to anyone), but he refused, claiming that this was only his opinion (user's English is a bit poor, so there could be misunderstandings in places). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've redacted part of the comment per WP:POLEMIC, which it clearly violates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The part where he says "I don't like being under any thought" is hard to deny. But it's odd that he hasn't been blocked yet for his blatantly racist comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

He needs to make such postings to deflect the attention of the authorities in charge of monitoring Social Media and the Internet. Count Iblis (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you being rhetorical, or is there a factual basis to that claim? If so, what evidence are you basing it on? Are you claiming that if he didn't make such a claim he would suffer some official punitive actions? If that's the case, why edit en.wiki at all, since his English skills appear to not be quite up to it, why not edit the Wikipedia of his native language instead? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

To add to that, what is the meaning of "It seems my account is hacked so if you see something is wrong please ignore it!" on their user page, and when suggested that they open a new account "Thank you, but the difficulty won't be resolved and for new account the same events repeats only I can inform". Is the suggestion that the authorities in Iran are editing through his account and that they made the remark on his talk page? If any of this is true, then we should take the step of blocking his account as being compromised, and PBdali should make a new account and edit through proxies, as accounts in China must do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the editor has made no article edits whatsoever [168], their edits are to talk pages and the RefDesk. We're not a social media website, editors should be here to improve the encyclopedia, not to chat. Given that, and the fact that they admit their account is compromised, shouldn't this account be blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk)

Given the situation in Iran, it's entirely logical for someone seeking information on a way to leave the country (see his postings on the Math Ref Desk) to give some signals showing his loyalty to the current political system there so as to avoid any suspicions that he is trying to leave on improper grounds. Count Iblis (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

So the guardians of the current Iranian administration would look at his single expression of antisemitism, say to themselves "Oh, he's a good guy, he's not the droid we're looking for" and ignore his other edits where he publicly "[seeks] information on a way to leave the country"? That's a pretty non-sensical scenario even for you, Count Iblis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit of people standing behind trees wondering why they can't see the forest around here today. I'mma go look at some articles and see what I can do and possibly common sense will return tomorrow. John from Idegon (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Just adding for sanity's sake that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to get brownie points for your country, even if that is what he's doing, which it isn't. --Tarage (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• I happened to notice this user already earlier on and his behaviour, possibly entrenched in his natural/nurtured/encultured background, appeared to me as somewhat r<edacted>. However, (i) changing the —maybe even on his own talk page slightly inappropriate to WP-rules— remark "I see a domination of <attribute, redacted by PP> thoughts like Google or Hollywood on the USA" to "I see a <redacted per WP:POLEMIC> on the USA", (ii) adding a new thread about this idea being "Hatespeech" and being "completely unacceptable", and (iii) even raising an WP:AN/I procedure, is a fundamental attack on "free speech" and an exaggeration of the efforts to provide a "safe space" in WP for those not apt to grown up language. I think the redaction I suggested above is the utmost possible restriction of free speech in this case. Purgy (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• WP:FREESPEECH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

BMK, there are many Iranians who are not refugees who work abroad. They are careful to not look like they're dissidents. Count Iblis (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't hurt your spine while you're bending over backwards like that.

PBadali responds to my redaction:

@Beyond My Ken! please evoke the past my revision! and be a little bit honest at the limit of your intelligence!

and to the suggestion that they read WP:POLEMIC

Okay, I am waiting to see the result but it will display your courage!

It seems fairly clear that a mechanical translator is being used here, and that, at the very least, PBadali does not have the necessary competence in English to be editing English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

So far he has only been active on the Math Desk without much problems. Count Iblis (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Iblis, whatever point you think you're trying to make, your failing at it spectacularly. Time to stop. --Tarage (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to update, PBadali struck through BMK's redacted version of his comment ([169]) and readded the original. I reverted and directed him here. I'm not sure he even understands the problem. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Best to explain this to him in Farsi. Count Iblis (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an ENGLISH WEBSITE. No. Hell no. If the editor can't edit in English, they shouldn't be here. Period. --Tarage (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm cutting the Gordian knot here and blocking indefinitely per the user's admission that their account is hacked (on their userpage), as well as the events discussed here. I'll leave it to someone else to close this section, though, in case that's a controversial move. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The editor was complaining about Google and Hollywood, but it seems to be Facebook that has the sort of a problem that he is talking about. Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a point? Or are you just vomiting words? --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, you beat me to it, so IMO that's a good block. A Train^talk 21:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• PBadli obviously doesn't understand WP:POLEMIC (if they even read it), given this. Again all the signs of a mechanical translator being used ("critter"?), and the thought that Germans, and Jews and North Koreans aren't bad, but their thoughts are bad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's easier to unblock him and tell him to only stick to asking math questions as he was doing when he came here, but I guess once the decision has been taken that someone here is an enemy of the people, it's too late for that. Count Iblis (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

---

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

User constantly removing maintenance templates from articles without explanation

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

---

• 108.35.90.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This editor has been removing maintenance templates from articles since last March without any explanation in edit summaries, despite numerous warnings and pleas to do so on the IP's talk page. The IP was blocked four times in the last year for doing this, but their behavior continues, most recently here, here, here, and here. It's even more frustrating because the editor has recently started using edit summaries for some of their edits (showing that they know how edit summaries work), but the IP continues to choose not to use edit summaries when they remove maintenance templates. I reported this previously to AIV but typically no action is taken because it's not blatant vandalism — can an admin here help? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, abuse of maintenance templates is vandalism - see WP:SNEAKY. Given their previous record, I have continued the increasing block length, for 3 months this time. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response (and for the clarification that it did constitute vandalism)! Much appreciated. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Wickedtuna

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

---

Wickedtuna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started a reasonable article a Don Bosco Technical College-Cebu, Inc. but then went overboard with a staff list with childishly insulting links on the staff names Special:Permalink/818905131. The talk page shows a troubling record of disruptive editing. Brought here following AIV dicussion. Wickedtuna needs a short block to help to learn that Wikipedia isn't a playground. Cabayi (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If not a block, the user definitely needs a stern and final warning. Also, is the username an issue considering it matches the name of a TV show, Wicked Tuna? Deli nk (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The user already has two final warnings. If they're to mean anything at all "final" must actually mean "final" at some point. Cabayi (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The user's edits are a mixture of incompetence and vandalism with a few constructive edits thrown into the mix. They are already blocked on Commons (two weeks) for copyright violations. Here, they created a hoax article (deleted) and another article that was pretty close to an attack page, although it was deleted as an A7. I'm considering an indefinite NOTHERE block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Flamingoflorida is back with sockpuppets

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

---

Flamingoflorida (talk · contribs) was blocked for WP:COI and WP:CIR. She came back as Artliker (talk · contribs). See previous ANI.
She is now editing as 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:BE (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with the same focus on Recanati winery and Overseas Shipholding Group Billhpike (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Billhpike, I blocked that IP for obvious block evasion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

She is now using 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I think we need a rangeblock on 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:00/112 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Billhpike (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Billhpike, I also blocked that IP. I will let an administrator experienced with range blocks evaluate that part of your request. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Also using 2600:387:9:3::c1 (talk · contribs · 2600:387:9:3::c1 WHOIS). (Already blocked) Billhpike (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What's with the shopping mall edits? [170] Different editor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Flamingoflorida has made similar edits. [171] Billhpike (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:0/112 blocked two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:BE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is in the 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:00/112 range and has been associated with Maleidys Perez (talk · contribs), who was also blocked for sock puppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maleidys Perez/Archive. I suspect Flamingoflorida is just another sockpuppet of Maleidys Perez. Billhpike (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Kinda looks like the same mangled English, too. Quack, quack. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done some digging throug edit histories. I think the following IP ranges are associated with the same vandal:

• 2600:387:2:809:0:0:0:97/112 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - Note: very narrow ipv6 range
• 2601:58A:8600:F6D0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 24.138.202.246/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 107.77.215.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 64.237.233.96/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 24.50.204.149/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - Note that 24.50.204.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made vandal edits today.
  

The telltale sign is an obsession with San Francisco (sans-serif typeface) and childrens TV shows. Another common behavior is requests for a direct block after an autoblock (example). Most IPs appear to be from Puerto Rico.
Some of the IP ranges overlap with those used by WP:Long-term abuse/Link Smurf and there are some behavior similarities. Since the IP ranges are broad, it could just be a coincidence. I'd appreciate inpute on whether to file a new LTA report or update the Link Smurf report?
(pinging Link Smurf experts Imzadi1979 TJH2018 ) Billhpike (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

She is now using Crazypug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can we just semiprotect all of Category:Recanati family? (Proposed by @Cullen328: [172]) Billhpike (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I filed for a SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flamingoflorida Billhpike (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Dinhio13

User:Dinhio13 is persistently removing several clubs from the career of football player Akaki Khubutia, despite them being confirmed by external sources. Said user also does not engage in any discussion, despite my advances in revert summaries (at first) and his talk page (more recently). The article in question is the only one he ever edited, and google search by his nickname suggests that he is either the player himself, or a close person, thus also violating WP:AB -BlameRuiner (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it me or is the fact the user has only edited this one page suspicious? I think we have a one-purpose account here. TomBarker23 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Page ECP and user warned. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Recurring incremental vandal 2

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

---

This IP range[173] was blocked for subtle vandalism of numbers, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#Recurring_incremental_vandal and appeares to be continuing after being unblocked, I have noticed more of the same kind of number changes from this IP range yesterday[174] and this morning[175].

I have been watching this range and reverting the suspicious edits, but have not given any warnings or notified them of this ANI as the vandal is constantly changing IPs. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the range again, for a week this time. There is the occasional good-faith edit from this range, but 90%+ since the previous block expired on 1 January have been vandalism. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing / removing talk page posts by User:SeraphWiki

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

---

User:SeraphWiki deleted a talk page post I made, against Wikipedia policy (here) and once I realised he did that, I re-added my post, and added the appropriate warning template here ({{subst:uw-tpv1}}) which is for "Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments." The user quickly removed the re-added post and the warning template here, and added this to my talk page, and I increased the level here, and he yet again removed it here and left this on my talk page saying i misused a warning template. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 02:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: User:SeraphWiki has removed the template required to be posted when an account is under an incident investigation. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

R9tgokunks (yes, very confusing to have two names), did you not read and grasp the note NeilN left? And that required template is a notification, not a scarlet letter. Now hush and leave this be. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing / removing talk page posts by User:SeraphWiki (repost due to issue not being addressed)

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

---

User:SeraphWiki deleted a talk page post I made, against Wikipedia policy (here) and once I realised he did that, I re-added my post, and added the appropriate warning template here ({{subst:uw-tpv1}}) which is for "Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments." The user quickly removed the re-added post and the warning template here, and added this to my talk page, and I increased the level here, and he yet again removed it here and left this on my talk page saying i misused a warning template. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 02:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: User:SeraphWiki has removed the template i posted to his talk page required to be posted when an account is under an incident investigation. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

R9tgokunks (yes, very confusing to have two names), did you not read and grasp the note NeilN left? And that required template is a notification, not a scarlet letter. Now hush and leave this be. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

"Consistency" in radio/TV station templates

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

---

Copied/pasted from my talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There is actually no consistency in formatting of radio station or TV "branding" or "slogan" in the templates. Some use bold, some use italics, some use quote marks, some use combinations. But WP:MOS does not support any of these except for quote marks. See also this, which uses simple quotes for the branding. If we're going to have consistency it should be consistent with MOS. Jeh (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Then you would have to change every article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No, not at all. As for the current offenders, I've been working on that, but sometimes people keep reverting. Jeh (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What administrator action are you requesting? This looks like a discussion that should be either on a user talk page; or the talk page of a template or related Wikiproject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yah... I'm at a loss as to what "incident' I'm apparently being accused of here. Jeh (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Singapore airlines vandal -- rangeblock?

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

---

Wrong dates, wrong numbers of aircraft, wrong airports... Somebody in Singapore has been using multiple IPs to vandalize airlines articles for the last seven days. Is a rangeblock possible? To me, it looks like a tight grouping. Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• 183.90.36.240 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 183.90.36.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 183.90.36.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 183.90.36.246 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 183.90.36.243 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 183.90.36.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 183.90.36.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 183.90.36.244 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

They're all in 183.90.36.224/27, which is small enough that a block is unlikely to cause a lot of collateral damage. I've blocked it for a week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Still active at a nearby IP. Binksternet (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• 183.90.37.246 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

 Done 183.90.37.224/27 range blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:NepalMyMotherland

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

---

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

Since their last unblock, NepalMyMotherland has made a spurious BRFA, written a telling post at WT:RFA, created a G4, cut and pasted a draft and started approving AfC drafts against guidelines. They did manage to tag one of their moves with {{Histmerge}} when prompted, so perhaps they are not acting in bad faith, but there are chronic competency issues here and without mentoring they are a damage to the encyclopedia. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Soory I dont konw much what to do. Now i willn't repeat. NepalMyMotherland 08:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NepalMyMotherland (talk • contribs)

At the very least, your signature must include a link to your user or user talk page. See WP:SIGLINK. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure English wiki is the place for this editor....clearly English is not their fortay.--Moxy (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Nor even their forte. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think forts come with instructions. Build a wall, dig a trench, mount some cannons. Not hard. We didn't get instructions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 20:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• User was blocked CIR by Alex Shih. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 17:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Stevenpanameno seemingly using draft space as a web host

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

---

The editor Stevenpanameno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has the following drafts:

• Draft:Haylor!(web series) which they have been working on since January 2015 and has only submitted for review once, in October 2016.
• Draft:SJL (web series) which they have been working on since June 2015 and has only submitted for review once, in October 2016.
• Draft:Steven Panameno created in August 2017 and declined by me the when it was submitted for review on the day it was created.

Given the clear COI on all three, it appears odd to me that someone would continually edit drafts for so long but make no further attempt to have them accepted. Does this look like using draft space as a webhost? Looking at the YouTube channels, Haylor only has 74 subscribers and the most any of their videos has had is 137 views, so these are obscure subjects never likely to be accepted into mainspace as far as I can see. I don't think I can nominate them at MFD as that's not for notability issues. I left a message on their talk page 11 days ago asking them what their intention is for the drafts, but have not had a reply. WP:U5 seems to apply only to userspace, not draftspace? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could nominate it at mfd as a webhost violation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:MfD is thataway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your advice Galobtter and Mendaliv. Nominated here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Djsasso

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

---

It might be inappropriate to question administrator behavior but Djsasso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted[176][177][178] my edits without any explanation (pov pushing in the last one). I restored[179][180][181][182] them explaining why they're significant. I hope you can explain why he's right and I'm not. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Did you actually discuss the matter with Djsasso (or notify him of this report)? Kleuske (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Edit warring over archival of stale talk page

Requesting thoughts about talk:Symbol. The talk threads were all archived in 2016 by Cluebot III. This week, user:66.31.54.242 reverted the archival of threads dating back to 2004, and after having their restoring reverted by User:DanielPenfield and myself, they restored it again and started a thread at talk:Symbol#Don't arbitrarily remove talk page content -- put thought into it.. Basically a long rant against archival bots in general, which seemed a bigger issue than that one talk page, so seemed to require a broader venue - just not sure the best board for it.

I'm heading to bed and working from a cell phone with low battery, so would request someone to notify the IP for me. I'll be back in several hours, after I wake. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you editing here, Mr. President! EEng 12:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The admins appear to have taken the night off. AIV is pretty well backlogged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going through the AIV backlog now. Sorry nobody was around, Bugs. With this Symbol chap, there hasn't been any edits in several hours and nobody's left him a talk page warning, so ordinarily that would not get a block via AIV. I'll keep an eye on him, though. A Train^talk 12:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem; when I posted here, I wasn't looking for a block. The IP appears to have a complaint about archive-bot behavior in general (although archival on that specific talk page was the current focus). I mainly had two concerns: I was hoping for someone to help point the IP to a discussion board better suited for addressing archive-bot concerns. Would the best place be User talk:ClueBot Commons, or Help talk:Archiving a talk page, or Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines? I was unsure where to suggest. And second, I was heading to bed and wanted to see if someone could de-escalate the developing edit war before a 3RR block might occur (which wasn't going to help anyone).

I appreciate everyone taking a look; but does anyone have a suggestion for a board where the IP could better address their archive-bot concerns? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Since I am addressed in one thread above I noticed this one quarrel, and stopped by there too, to suggest the "minthreadsleft"-parameter. This seems to please the IP! So I think the rather aggressive tone this IP usually employs should not be mirrored by admins, talking about "chaps" on which they will have "an eye" on with the threat of a block as danaos dona ferentes. BTW, activating an archiver should also bee accorded. Was it?

... and yes, I added the template on IP's talk, too. Purgy (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

BLP violations on Sholam Weiss

A new user, Lexjuris has been making edits to Sholam Weiss which violate WP:BLP. He has removed information which was sourced and is adding information that is not sourced. In two instances the information he has added the ref just says "ibid" and in one place he added a blank ref tag with nothing in it. I have attempted to post on his talk page asking him to not make these edits however he continues to make them. Thanks - Galatz^Talk 00:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted, told user to use the talk page and warned not to repeat edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If someone (patient) wants to help the user out on their talk page it would be appreciated. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I was a patient for a while, but the doctors say I'm not dangerous anymore, so would I qualify for the job? EEng 05:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

After that pun, the very least you can do is go help. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I would, seriously, but I'm just not that kind of patient, at least not today. I'll copyedit a bit, in the "home" I always found that ... soothing. EEng 06:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Ziebardt

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

---

Needs to be indefinitely blocked for this explicit death threat against a named living person. Edit should be revdeled. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

WMF emailed just in case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

As someone who knows this sock well (to the point of silly and fruitless Twitter-stalking against me), this is yet another sock of Hypocritepedia (talk · contribs) going by how they always seem to hit the Tsarnaev ‎article in the way they do (this earlier edit is also hitting sirens; they're always attacking left/right-wing radical BLPs). Tagging appropriately, and keeping on the lookout for sleepers. Nate • (chatter) 05:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Disclosed his/her intention to violate the Terms of Use

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

---

AshFriday has disclosed his/her intention to violate the Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation through violating the policies of en.wiki, namely, WP:SOAP and WP:CENSOR, as explained at WP:ACTIVIST. I quote from his/her own Commons user page: "Planning to clean up en.Wiki and Commons of copyright vios and smut." I.e. remove smut from en.wiki, which is a clear violation of WP:CENSOR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

He can say what he pleases about our policies-we have to judge by his actions. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• No action needed. AshFriday has, frankly, stated an intent to do a good thing: Clean up copyvios (unquestionably a good thing) and get rid of content that violates COM:PORN. And though he characterizes the latter as "smut", his actions at Commons in my view show a great hit rate on images that should be deleted as violating COM:PENIS (i.e., random low-quality dick pics). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you're right, but it could be beginner's luck: if he/she really wants to carry out his/her plan, he/she will get into hot water. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

God forbid that someone wants to show some good editorial judgement here and remove gratuitous sexual images that contribute in no way towards our mission. Someone fetch me the smelling salts! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC).

Ah, before we place a laurel wreath on his head, let's see what, exactly, he means by "smut". WP:CENSOR exists for a reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not draft WP:CENSOR, but now that it is part of WP:PAGs I take it seriously. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Harassment

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

---

The user Sardinaalabarbacoa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ignited a harrasment against me because reverted an article. This user is blocked in three projects for bad behaviour and insults. --Taichi (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And he continues... --Taichi (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior. 1, 2, 3. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I've applied a 72 hour block. Frankly I wouldn't require a lot of convincing to support an indef block but I'll leave a message on the user's talk page and see how that goes. A Train^talk 07:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, their unblock request does not look promising. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 07:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I was edit-conflicted while leaving a message by the user's unblock request, wherein they continue their campaign against Taichi. I won't review the unblock request myself for propriety's sake, but my recommendation to the admin who does would be to just extend Sardine BBQ's block to indef. A Train^talk 07:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I will likely deny talk page access and decline the unblock. Checking. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Having reviewed his edits, it would be reasonable to indef block as nothere. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Alex Shih (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

MehrdadFR

• MehrdadFR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Editor keeps reverting a NPOV on the Women_in_Iran page without reaching consensus, vandal has already been warned and reported here several times, some instances of vandalism on this page are listed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=805391898 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=796529779 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=744017864 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=743981069 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=743978458 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=741580560 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=722621053 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=721929106 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=721923207 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=817097872

NB same links as above formatted as diffs:[183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192]

This vandal is ideologically motivated, they have also been blocked from the following pages in the past: Hijab_by_country, United_Against_Nuclear_Iran, Anti-Iranian_sentiment, Irreligion_in_Iran, and Discrimination_against_atheists. As well as making unsourced edits and removing sourced edits on scores of other iran related pages (see users talk page).

12usn12 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I am copying the above from here as per my offer. There may be something to look at here given MehrdadFR's past warnings and sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

12usn12 You have used 'revisions', (format: &oldid=805391898) rather than 'diffs' (format: &diff=prev&oldid=805391898). This makes it harder to see the edit changes. You may be able to amend using an external 'find-change' text editor. Pincrete (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The tone of Snooganssnoogans

I have been trying to improve immigration to Sweden recently (controversial topic), things were going fine and we had a civil discussion until user:Snooganssnoogans showed up. Instead of engaging in the discussion he started edit warring, being rude on the talk page of Talk:Immigration to Sweden as well as Talk:Immigration to the United States. He does not seek to balance the article, but instead try to push on view on the subject. Furthermore if you look at his user page he actively boast about upsetting user of a different perspective and I think that is tone and attitude towards other users is not in line with community standards. Instead of trying to improve the crime section he tries to blank it with a biased text that fits his views on the subject.

He has made it clear that he is not looking to get a neutral view on the subject, by demonstrating an aversion towards Sweden Democrats and Tino Sanandaji.

P.S. There is also a dispute regarding a reference to a self published, but peer reviewed book, where should we go to settle this?

Best regards, Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For the book, WP:RSN for a quick and concise answer, follow the instructions at the top. The name/location of the source, article its to be used in, the information used in the article the source is to support. -edit- Oh its Tino, I remember this. See RSN archive here under Crime in Sweden. I'm assuming the self-published work is Massutmaning. If you start a new discussion at RSN try and keep it simple as to what it is being used to source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There are three points I want to make:

(1) When User:Immunmotbluescreen says that I don't want to "seek the balance", what the user has in mind is an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The text that User:Immunmotbluescreen objects to is long-standing text from Immigration and crime that was recently imported to Immigration to Sweden. The text is extensively well-sourced (half the sources are scholarly publications and the rest are high-quality news sources).

(2) My alleged aversion towards Sweden Democrats and Tino Sanandaji is because I removed an analysis published by the Sweden Democrats (a far-right political party in Sweden) and a self-published book by Tino Sanandaji. These sources do not belong on Wikipedia, as they are not WP:RS (try imagining someone adding an analysis of immigration by the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign to pages related to American immigration).

(3) User:Immunmotbluescreen, who was reverted by three different users, has done the same revert on five occasions within 24 hrs (mass-removal of reliably sourced text) and re-introduced Tino Sanandaji's self-published books on seven occasions within 24 hrs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Immunobluescreen has now progressed to saying that Snooganssnoogans and Iryna Harpy are making "troll edits" [193], and rejecting advice from an uninvolved editor (me) with a "stop playing in my sandbox" comment [194]. Unless someone with a hammer lays a serious warning on them, I think they're heading for a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by a hammer? This is a new one. (I only just worked out what canvassing is... :( ) TomBarker23 (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess Beyond My Ken is referring to a banhammer... so someone wielding a hammer here would be an admin ;) –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Sorry if I was being too opaque. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well it's better than when you're being a pane in the glass. EEng 07:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ooooooo... Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User Fisted Rainbow - Conflict of Interest

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

---

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

I would like to request User Fisted Rainbow is blocked from the page Earthcore for WP:COI reasons. He has freely admitted he is the owner of the Earthcore Festival here on the article's talk page, in this section [[195]] but frequently edits the page to remove negative comments about it. The page had controversies section, which in the past, he has completely removed. He is currently trying to remove some negative press for the festival. This issue has been questioned before by a number of editors, and has been going on for some years, however, I believe it hasn't been brought to the attention of the admins. He has been editing the page to present the article in the best light. Checking his contributions, it appears to be the only page he edits. As per wikipedia policy, I have asked him if he in a COI with this page, and he has said he is not, even though he admitted it in the talk page for Earthcore, above. Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the link you provided, and read the text there three times, but I don't see where Fisted Rainbow admitted to owning the festival or otherwise having a COI:

Why in your list of articles above there is not a single article you have listed that provides balance like the following one http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/earthcore-festival-accuses-artists-keeping-money-refusing-play/ amongst numerous other articles that provide balance.

You claim you are trying to be balanced yet here we are with you only posting links to one side of a story. Its clear you have a conflict of interest as you are obsessed about this topic and refusing to allow the article to have balance.

You are also using "facebook" posts and other non credible stories as "proof". At no stage can you provide a factual story that lists your claim that 32 acts did not perform let alone 32 acts not performing and not being paid. Get your facts right and show balance or admit you have a alterior motive to skwere article in one perspective. Cease starting a edit war and discuss here so we can work on a balanced article.

What am I missing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Beyond My Ken - there is a lot to read through on that page, I should have made it easier. User Fisted Rainbow writes two posts in the talk page, controversies section, (you need to open the green extended content bar to see it) [[196]] signing off as "Spiro Boursine" and "Spiz". Spiro Boursine is the owner of Earthcore, as indicated in this article [[197]] (and you can just do Google searches for Earthcore and "Spiro Boursine" to confirm that)Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(First Quote)"Here we go again. Yawn........ For starters The Sphongle tour had nothing whatsoever to do with the Earthcore festival of which the article isn't written about so therefore Cognitive's arguement trying to include something that has no relevance to the Earthcore festival is a no brainer and not even worth discussing any further. The tour (NOT EARTHCORE) he is discussing tour was cancelled and refunds were made for that "concert" and no legal action happened by any parties. If cognitive disident can provide a valid link that shows that 1. Sphongle (live) was performing at a Earthcore festival in 2008 or 2009 then by all means please show all of us. 1.5 That the article above (via the age) is not written about Earthcore in anyway. The drug overdoses DID not happen at Earthcore and therefore have no bearing on Earthcore. 2. Show any documented legal action that was taken (ie court order etc etc) in the regards to <snipped to reduce length> What really is pathetic is the fact Earthcore is no more anyway in the first place and stopped over 2 years ago. Cognitive is flogging a dead horse and getting a mental erection from it I am assuming or as I said is a rival promoter afraid that we will be re entering the market which unfortunately for him we already have and will be putting on events in his region (his market) very very shortly. Could someone with some editing skills please include the artists I have listed above be added the artists who have played at Earthcore please ? With thanks and happy new year everyone !! Spiro Boursine (See Cognitive how easy it is to put your full name behind what one says ? ):-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)"

(Second Quote)::::"Mr Anonymous - I find it rather amusing that you continue to hide your identity yet make claims that you volunteered at my events. Due to the fact you continue to not put your actual name to your claims your words mean absolutely nothing to me yet your motives present themselves as clear as a blue sky. You are a rival promoter who has vainly attempted to personally discredit me and my old festival. If you really really feel like flogging the dead horse then why not start or add a Shpongle tour wiki subject and say that we(I) failed to get them over to australia or whatever rocks your boat and makes you happy. (Removed personal contact details due to recent harassment by Cognitive Disident 60.242.37.151 (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I have nothing to hide nor am I what you think I am. Cheers Spiz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)"

(EC)...What's more, Deathlibrarian's post on that talk page ends with "btw I'm totally not connected with this group". So we have an editor who claims to have no connection with a group despite not being asked about such, edit warring, and then falsly reporting other editors for COI? Um... boomerang? --Tarage (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

...On second viewing, based on the above, there does appear to be a COI. I stand corrected. --Tarage (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah ... I was confused myself, but this is the main diff, I think. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd love to hear from Fisted Rainbow, since the above diff seems pretty damning. --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, the section is hard to read, I should have posted the excerpt straight off to make it easier. You may note Cognitive Dissident also noted this as a COI *6 years ago*, but admins weren't notified. Better late than never, I guess!!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(Quote from Earthcore talk page) - "Mr Boursine: I have no interest in "contacting you personally". why would I? I have no interest in you or your organisation. you continually trot out the line "rival promoter" yet have no evidence for it. A slanderous approach and against the rules of wikipedia.* I don't understand why you are allowed to edit the wiki page of an organisation that you started, thats conflict of interest, and, again, against the ethics of wikipedia.* I also draw exception to your intimation that i have added falicious information to this article. all i did was wikify an article that was (poorly) written in the form of a self-aggrandising personally essay. any information in the body of the article that you claim to be false has not been removed in the several months that this argument has dragged out. you are welcome to add or modify information, as you said you would, but it hasn't been forthcoming; leading me to believe that your main interest is not historical record but protection of your (as you so strongly point out, now defunct) "brand name". Also, do yoiu think I would be stupid enough to name myself when you have shown your passion for threatening litigation time and again? This is a public encyclopedia, to be edited by the public, for the public. welcome to the 21st century. (By the way: sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "rival promoter!" is not an argument, its a tantrum.)I'm curious why you have edited the rainbow serpent page when you have such a strong moral veiw on "rival promoters" editing wiki articles? Awaiting your forthcoming vitriole with baited breath :) Cognitive Dissident (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)"

• All of the above aside, maybe I've just been on the Internet too long, but the username "Fisted Rainbow" raises my eyebrow just a little in the direction of WP:U... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• It definitely has a certain odor about it, but perhaps not strong enough to justify action? Unless, of course, the phrase has some underground meaning that I'm not aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• It could be referring to this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Might also be a reference to Rainbow Serpent Festival, a very similar Australian festival. Black Kite (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Re my username. Now you are going being paranoid. The username is what I use for playing poker and general chat on the internet and no form of bizarre conspiracy. Please cease attempting to divert from the issues presented which is very far from questioning my innocent username. Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is no conspiracy or paranoia. There's a name that looks a lot like it could be a violation of the username policy, so it's going to be discussed. There's a lot of usernames you can use anywhere else on the Internet that are not acceptable on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've dropped a hand-rolled notice on their talk page about WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:Casting aspersions and WP:NPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have broken no Wiki policies for starters and have attempted to put forward a balanced article which quotes two sides to a story and have been constantly threatened by Deathlibrarian to forbid this from happening. Deathlibrarian's stubborness to allow two sides of a story shows "bias". I even went as far as posting on his talk page a balanced suggestion with footnotes to the article of which he has ignored. Instead Death Librarian prefers to make threats and ignore common sense. Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Fisted Rainbow responded on my talk page:

  I have done exactly that. Made suggestions on Death Librarian's talk page for a fair and balanced article. If he doesn't allow 2 sides to be submitted into the article I am sure there will be others that will also put the same forward. It's clear you are a personal friend of Deathlibrarian and therefore simply bullying me and not being impartial Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  Also you have failed to carefully read the talk page of the article about the use of credible sources and other issues that are all in support of my suggested edits.

  Using your personal bias here is def a breach of Wiki polices so I suggest you change your path here.

  So, instead of taking my comments to heart and adjusting his own behavior, FR chose to cast more aspersions and make claims that have no validity at all. (I've never heard of Deathlibrarian before.) He appears to be heading straight for a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've apologised for casting asperations claims direct on Beyond My Ken talk page. Won't happen again however why is Death Librarian not allowing the following counter claim to be placed on the article in question ? Why in your list of articles above there is not a single article you have listed that provides balance like the following one http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/earthcore-festival-accuses-artists-keeping-money-refusing-play/ amongst numerous other articles that provide balance. Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• AN/I is a venue for discussing behavioral problems to be considered for action by admins, it is not the place to discuss content disputes. The proper place for that is on the article talk page, where a WP:CONSENSUS of editors decides what can and cannot be included in the article. Please take your arguments there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I know its not relevant here, but I've added that content on behalf of Fisted Rainbow, and noted it on the talk page for the article. Also Thanks Beyond My Ken,Tarage and Black Kite for dealing with this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor needs a much sterner warning than I am capable of giving. I'm out. --Tarage (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

One last thing, I encourage anyone and everyone to check out Fisted Rainbow's latest contributions which are bludgeoning at this point. This needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can't help but notice that FR wrote this as their first edit. They went on to briefly edit war ([198], [199]) disparaging comments on the talk page of Boing! said Zebedee, and followed up with making personal attacks against them. Note that this was entirely within their first 24 hours on this site. Several months later, FR was involved in an ANI thread in which they issued a legal threat, which they later retracted in a logged-out edit. Another few months later, FR was back to casting aspersions on JamesBWatson. After this, FR fell quiet for several years. After beginning to edit the article again in December of 2017, they quickly found themselves back at another editor's talk page, making more personal attacks. Since then, as other have pointed out, they have been a few bludgeoning other editors with personal attacks and aspersions.

I see some common threads in here. First is the obvious battleground mentality. Second is a propensity for presuming to dictate what other people think or feel to them, or what other people mean by what they say (accepting "apologies" that were never made, expressing mock sympathy for editors feeling "pressured", etc, etc). Finally, is the on-again, off-again nature. If you read the content discussions, you will see that each time this editor stop editing for a while, they had recently gotten their way on content.

So from examining that, what I see is an editor who is only here to ensure that WP says what they want it to say about a single subject from which they profit, in the way they want it said and who does this through combative tactics including personal attacks, the casting of aspersions and even threats of legal action. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Fisted Rainbow

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

---

• User talk:Fisted Rainbow
• Fisted Rainbow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time to remove TP access yet? Guy (Help!) 18:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Using the unblock template for wikilawyering isn't a good sign. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Fisted Rainbow is a truly alarming username. EEng 19:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thankfully, the user page does not contain any illustrations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

<hurries off to create an illustration> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Please revoke talkpage access

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

---

Benson tan at work was blocked for making legal threats. After continuously mentioning lawyers again, they're now using their talkpage to write an autobiography, despite warning not to. See Special:Diff/819324417. Please revoke TPA. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Alex Shih (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Funnily enough the person who opened this thread got blocked soon after. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Comment reconsidered --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: It's not that funny, please re-consider your comment. Alex Shih (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Bangladeshi editor

মাখামাখি (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an editor, presumably Bangladeshi, who has been creating a vast number of new articles, many of which have no evidence of notability. He/she has been warned, for example at User_talk:মাখামাখি#Kindly stop, but continues with the same problems. Among other problems he/she was repeatedly copying within Wikipedia without attribution, despite having been warned & having the process for attribution (and for splitting where applicable) explained to him/her. He/she was also warned about trying to use IMDB as a reliable source, but again continues despite the warning. A number of editors have given warnings, but these are all ignored. I fear that a block may be necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

He is also creating new categories with only one article, so of doubtful value. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Check that I've already corrected all the language issues in the film articles and I've added Bangladeshi editor category to another article Abul Khair (actor) who earned 26th Bangladesh National Film Awards for best editing (see inside the article). I'm new here, so I made a lot of mistakes. I think you should forgive me now. মাখামাখি (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As a new editor you ought to read the advice which you have been given by more experienced editors, and take notice, rather than merely deleting the warnings. I see that you are still creating numerous new articles, most of which are considered (by various editors) not to have evidence of notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ravi Shaw, created 7 days ago, uses http://bollywoodcelebfacts.com/ravi-shaw/ as its only reference. Taken from the bottom of that page is " Note: We provided you all available detail of Ravi Shaw. All Above information is collected from different sources such as Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter and different news channels & big magazines so we do not liable for any inaccuracy." thats pretty much textbook bad sourcing, yet you defended the article against deletion, claiming this as a reliable source just earlier today on the talk page. Both your edits to the Abul Khair (actor) article were reverted, because you did not reference them. I started editing June last year, same as you, and I have only created one article, but there are plenty of things to do here. You need to slow down, and stop creating articles until you read, understand and follow WP:RS. Until then, you are just making work for other people to clean up. Curdle (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

COI editing on Victoria Jackson page

The actress Victoria Jackson just announced on her facebook page that she edited her wikipedia page to remove "bias" and implied a desire for her fans to help out. We might want to have recent edits scrutinized and semi-protect the page. --T1980 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Recent changes by subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• I have temporarily blocked the account, and left the instruction for the user to confirm their identity through OTRS ticket. Alex Shih (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Glad to see the username Ukulelegal isn't being interpreted as "xxxx LEGAL" and everyone going nuts about legal threats as usual. EEng 18:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• It is legal for a gal to play a ukele, EEng. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Block him! He said legal! EEng 18:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Uh-huh, uh-huh, he said "legal"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• This has high potential to get ugly. Political activism + entertainment/celebrity. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Become Famus [my company], Get your WikiPedia Page at 85% off

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

---

I got an email solicitation today from (Redacted). Among other things, she offered me:

What do we propose? We will take you and your business truly global with a place on the world’s largest online encyclopedia, taking you instantly to the top of your league! It might look like a simple page on Wikipedia but here is what you really need to know to understand the real power of Wiki.
Interested to know more about it? Don’t wait any longer! We are offering a Special 85% discount on our Digital Services this New Year Click Here to Activate your 85% Off Deal Now.

Rhadow (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Their website is already down (suspended by their webhost), so someone seems to have acted fast on this... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• Their website is up again, so I posted some info about the site at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_editor_help. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe for the full price they'll run a spell-check. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Offensive sectarian vandalism edit should be deleted by admin

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

---

A user called "UnrepentantFenian1916" (a username which suggests an Irish nationalist bias) has been blocked indefinitely for offensive edits on players of Rangers F.C., a club with a British unionist ideology. Most of these edits have been deleted by admins. However, one edit here has not been. The edit mocks Nacho Novo, a former Rangers player, over his heart attack yesterday. As Mr Novo has been subject to death threats from similar people recently, this horrific edit should be deleted straight away. Harambe Walks (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

LTA sockpuppet

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

---

Could an administrator please revoke talk access for this LTA sockpuppet who since he's blocked apparently now believes that his talk page is the place to go. Not notifying user as there's no point. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. I'm tired of cleaning up after his hoaxes, and we don't need even more in user space. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Sweet Caroline editing

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

---

• Sweet Caroline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I was searching the Neil Diamond song "Sweet Caroline" and I noticed two users, ( Piriczki and Binksternet), had changed the official release date of the song from the correct date of "September 16th, 1969" to a date of June 1969... I changed it back and explained why on the talk page, but they are relying on obscure references and sources other than Neil Diamond himself such as here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/nov/20/usa.musicnews

http://societyofrock.com/neil-diamond-serenades-the-crowd-with-sweet-caroline-live-2/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2808898/I-needed-three-syllable-Singer-Neil-Diamond-reveals-Sweet-Caroline-love-song-wife-Marcia-not-rhyme.html

The June date that is constantly being changed to is incorrect based on the words of Neil Diamond himself who was interviewed by the Associated Press, The Guardian and Daily Mail. Mr. Diamond revealed that that OFFICIAL release date was September 16th, 1969. Apparently, the song must have been given to some local markets prior to that date where it started to actually chart on Billboard... However, the actual official release date was September 16th, 1969 per Neil Diamond himself in the above sources.

I have attempted to be reasonable with this and yet these users will not rely on the Associated Press affiliates like The Guardian, Society of Rock, etc.

I will post this to both users' Talk page.

Thanks for your help in this. Weintzer (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Weintzer. You are describing a routine content dispute and this noticeboard does not get involved with content disputes. Discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

However, Weintzer is engaged in an edit war to restore his preferred wording. That is a conduct issue. I've warned him on his talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, SarekOfVulcan. I am now involved because I have expressed an opinion on the content dispute. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have discovered that Weintzer himself is very likely the source of the date confusion, having introduced the wrong date to the song article 11 years ago, using an IP address from Crossville, Tennessee. My findings are reported here. This could be a good-faith mistake, but it also has the appearance of a purposeful hoax. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a mistake...I am in Baxter Tennessee, which is miles from Crossville and a different county. Weintzer (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking for the song in Newspapers.com (a pay site), I see a reference to Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline" on a Top 40 type of chart dated June 27, 1969. Looking a little further, the earliest reference I'm seeing to the song on a chart is June 14, 1969. So it would seem that a September release date is incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if the date in the sources provided above was based on what our article said at the time; the ideal should be to try and verify the September date from sources published before it was added to our article. Alternatively, I suppose it's possible there's some odd convention in the music industry for what "release date" means, though it being charted well before that September date would seem to indicate the single was on sale then. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Herodium and Malik Shabaz

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

---

Recently an edit was made to Herodium, which has since been reverted by to editors, but Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) insists on his preferred version despite the clear lack of consensus (as shown both from the reverts and on the talkpage). Please stop this editor. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, you both appear to be gaming the 24 hour 1RR restriction on this article and claiming consensus. Regardless, this is inevitably a content dispute and therefore probably doesn't belong at ANI. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• There is a difference -- I acknowledge that the two of us are edit-warring, and Debresser thinks that only one of us is (and it's not him). See his behavior at B'Tselem as well. Calling your preferred version "the consensus version" doesn't make it so. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not gaming anything. I strictly refrain from editing within 24 hours.

As to your point. I beg to differ. An editor who ignores the burden to establish a consensus for a change is a behavioral problem. Debresser (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you (a) read WP:ARBPIA or (b) looked in a mirror recently? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "I am not gaming anything. I strictly refrain from editing within 24 hours." One doesn't follow the other. Do you understand what Wikipedia:Gaming the system is? As Wikipedia:Edit warring explains, making a revert just outside the time period is often considered gaming. OTOH, reverting within the disallowed the time period (without any exception applying) is not gaming, it's a clear violation. So while it's good if you aren't editing in clear violation, this tells us nothing about whether you are gaming. Remember that the bright line rule is a strict limit and not intended to be some sort of right.

Also both sides should be aiming to achieve consensus for what the article says. WP:BRD generally means the norm is that something stays as it was if both sides feel strongly enough about the issue. But it doesn't mean only one party should be attempting to achieve consensus. If you're approaching things from the POV that my version is right because it's older, rather than trying to achieve a wording which has consensus the moment it's clear there's resonable dispute, this does not reflect well on you.

Ultimately if both sides keep edit warring, either the article will be locked (with no preference to any version per WP:WRONGVERSION) or everyone is likely to be sanctioned for edit warring. There are of course exceptions like for WP:BLP and WP:ENGVAR issues.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne What you say comes down to: if one or two editors insist long enough on their version, they can ignore the normal rules of inclusion of material on Wikipedia. Wikipedia must insist that editors abide by its rules, and one of them is that articles can not be changed if there is no consensus for that change. Now please enforce that. You may have noticed that other editors on the talkpage have also mentioned the [{WP:BURDEN]] and WP:WAIT issues of Malik et al at the above-mentioned B'Tselem article, see this edit. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Still haven't read WP:BURDEN yet, have you Debresser? It doesn't say what you think it says. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've protected the page while this lame edit war is sorted out. It is a content dispute which should be handled like any other. I have provided Debresser with policy guidance on their talk page, in response to their false claims of "consensus". Swarm ♠ 08:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Mass-templating as belonging to a Science Series

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

---

I am convinced that the extent of inserting {{Science}} in all the articles listed at LearnMore's contributions exceeds rational bounds. I suggest some mass measures, perhaps of reverting. Purgy (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Have you tried discussing it? Going from a few reverts to an ANI report may be considered a bit steep. Kleuske (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

First, this is not about about a few reverts, this is about mass templating.

Second, I regret if this complaint, the remedy of which I consider to be way beyond reasonable efforts on non-admin level, is here at the wrong place.

Third, I humbly ask for closing and archiving this thread, since I am not interested in discussing this at any level, I just wanted to turn administrative attention to a process I consider deteriorating the encyclopedia. Purgy (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As you suggest, mass additions like that are not desirable. {{Science}} is inappropriate in almost all pages where it was added. I rolled back what I could see and left the user a message. Please see if there are more. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and, yes, I know one when I see one. :) Purgy (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Suspected automated edits to Wikipedia main space and talk pages with blank templates

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

---

It seems that the user Thsmi002 is editing Wikipedia with an automated program to add to the edit counts. Most of the edits are spaced within a minute of each other Special:Contributions/Thsmi002 and does not seem to demonstrate any real purpose. All the edits in the Mainspace insert the template Authority Control. Most of the edits has been flagged as suspected Vandalism, but since the number of edits is very large I wanted to bring this to the ANI for investigation & suitable action as I suspect misuse. Hagennos (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problems. I suggest you go to Thsmi's talk page and raise any issues you have there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

They don’t look like automated edits. The template should be in the articles, according to Template:Authority control#Description. Peter James (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Its of variable usefulness. Because it draws its content from wikidata the reliability is suspect in the first place. When it is accurate, it may not add any information that is useful to a reader - one example being on biographies where it has entries on writer databases for people who have never written anything. On the other hand it can be very useful on a biography for someone who has legitimate entries on a number of databases. What it shouldn't be is automatically added to a Wikipedia article without each entry on the AC being verified first. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not editing using an automated program. I was adding WikiProject Women and the Authority Control template to articles about women that were missing them. I was also adding categories, photo requested, FSS, and annual readership. It is part of my interest in Women in Red to improve articles and their talk pages. I think this is evident in many of my contributions. I had no idea my edits were flagged as suspected vandalism. Thank you. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Hydrangea1 and Sarah Phillips (fashion designer)

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

---

Hydrangea1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User repeatedly removing swathes of content and COI/other maintenance tags at Sarah Phillips (fashion designer) without discussion, despite warnings. Any assistance appreciated. Note there have been COI issues/paid editing concerns at this article since it was created by blocked editor Jeremy112233. Thanks. -- Begoon 07:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Intimidating words and improper editing by User:Malik Shabazz

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

---

While I haven't visited this board in a long time, seeing this morning a message that possibly amounts to a clear Wikipedia:Harassment violation on my talk page brought me here. User:Malik Shabazz threatened that if I continue contributing to Wikipedia (in what only he perceived was non-neutrality) then "things will not end well for [me]". Admins, please see for yourself, this is how the sentence ended, as a general intimidation. I ask that he states clearly what he means by that as I want to make sure the threat is focused on Wikipedia (which still does not make it okay, but at least should be resolved here).

This happened following the user's misconduct on the article Hillel Neuer, after he deleted and redirected that long and well-sourced article without any discussion or consensus(!), and when other users undid him, he reverted them 3 times in slightly over 24 hours, using another account of his his, User:MShabazz. (Again, take a minute to see for yourself. When that wasn't successful for said user, he proposed it for deletion. Shortly after, two anonymous IP addresses jumped into the article's deletion discussion in favor of deleting and redirecting, which a user reverted just now since they apparently had no permission/didn't meet the standards to do so, but that may be a different issue). Shalom11111 (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Threatened"...sure. You seem to be misrepresenting the chain of events. Malik's edits were based on Drmies initial redirect months ago. Two SPAs (wonder who they belong to) who couldn't make edits to the article in the first place attempted to overrule Drmies; Malik, or any other editor with requirements met, should/could revert them as soon as possible. So, in reality, Malik only reverted the page once -- well within discretion -- and then sent it to AFD. I think you should close this now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The user used intimidating language - and this is not the first time coming from him though I'm undecided at the moment whether to provide additional examples - and he should clarify it. Dealing with such issues is exactly what this forum is for and it's important for the Wiki community. Malik Shabazz's repeated revets, and deletion/redirect of that article, even if some user did it months earlier, were not right for the reasons explained above. Shalom11111 (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Shalom11111, please read WP:ASPERSIONS. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why you brought this here. If you really need clarification you should ask Malik Shabazz directly, but really it's silly to think that the comment was intended to be a suggestion of off-wikipedia action since it's something people say all the time. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Including on Wikipedia. It's nothing more than an overused slang expression. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The comment pointed at discretionary sanctions or some such thing--the place where POV editors frequently end up. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW I admit after reading the pointless complaint about "things will not end well" I sort of glossed over the complaint about editing. Maybe there is something there. But at the very least, I feel my comment applies to the first part of this complaint and it also serves as an important reminder why you should not bring silly stuff to ANI, especially if you should have at least talked to the editor first. People tend to ignore the rest even if there's something actually there. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That said even editing misconduct needs to either be serious or sustained to have any real chance of administrative action. Now that I've read it a bit better, the description here is anything but. For starters, EW issues should be dealt with at WP:AN/EW. But realistically if an article or the editor aren't isn't on 1RR and someone reverts 3 times (not 4) in over 24 hours a single time, sanction is very unlikely since they haven't broken the bright line 3RR by both counts. And remember, WP:BRD means there's a good chance there's is even anything wrong with the first edit. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Mike Littlejohn

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

---

Mike Littlejohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User talk:Mike Littlejohn (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User has added nonsense on their talk page since being blocked for disruptive behavior. ToThAc (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It can be annoying to see those edits, but it's his own talk page. See the guidelines on user talk pages. —JJB^ers 16:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit: It seems he deleted his block template, I restored it for him. —JJB^ers 16:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines do not permit any editor, blocked or unblocked, to post gibberish to their Talk page. I've removed it. If the editor persists, then TPA should be revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@JJBers Public: I didn't notice your restoration of the block template. In fact, he can remove the template, and you shouldn't have restored it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, what Bbb says. See WP:BLANKING. I did remove some other garbage from the user's user page. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Is there a kind of code / rule / habit that administrators have to answer or not ?

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

---

Please dear administrators, is there a habit / code / rule or anything about having to reply ? By this, I mean, the editor who reported violation accusation against me (see above "Admitted meatpuppetry and proxy editing for blocked users") and to who I'm asking questions in good faith, does not answer to me. If I understood correctly, these 2 violations claims won't be keeped about me, but then, he added a third violation accusation "My concerns about meat and proxy have been addressed, but there remains WP:NOTHERE", once more, I answered him and asked question, but no answer so far. Should he answer me, or he is free not to ?

As for en administrator who I disagree with (here I think about the administrator that told me my souce from Guardian was only "a brief mension" about Vanessa Beeley, which I think is wrong, and I told him so on my talk page), while he was justifying my article was an "attack page" because it was poorly sourced. He recognized he hadn't read (all ?) my sources before delting my article, (and neither before answering me). I think maybe he, or someone else, as there was an edit conflict, could have time to check with me or help me get an accepted article on the subject (I at once accepted to edit my article _ which I was trying to do already when it was deleted _ to remove sources not reliable enough, to follow advice, etc.).

Should he answer to me, or is he free not to ? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories

I first didn't mean to insist that much, but on such a controversial subject (Vanessa Beeley, war propaganda about Syria, mass murder, etc.), it is a bit complicated to accept how it went :

- one editor edited many points on my article, added unreliable sources, reported me to an admin, and then didn't answer me again

- the administrator deleted my article at once, answered to me, but changed his mind about the reasons when I proved my good faith and gave him the sources(reasons were : lacked sources, then wrong source, then not enough notability, now "name drop" and "a brief mention" while Beeley's name is quoted 12 times in the Guardian and many paragraphs are about her !)

- these 3 violation accusations without any answer to me...

I don't want to look like a victim of paranoia (which I can easily become with all threats I have for sharing this kind of information outside Wikipedia), but I begin to doubt if it's really a normal and welcoming way to help people improve shared knowledge on Wikipedia, because similar articles were accepted and I was helped to improve them without any violation accusation, without being threatened of being blocked, without any doubt on my sufficient sources, while several administrators and editor read my article. So... would it be possible that some people on English Wikipedia would rather avoid this subject, I don't think so ? But then, why don't they help me or at least answer me ?M.A. Martin (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As I already told you on one of the other threads you've opened about this particular topic, you're not being persecuted by admins. Wikipedia has clear rules about what we do and don't include, and your Vanessa Beeley article contained 36 sources, of which at most five were remotely reliable and the remainder were a mix of Twitter feeds, LinkedIn pages, Russian propaganda websites and assorted blogs, and the article itself was a hatchet-job in which more than 50% of the text was taken up with a "Controversy" section. Wikipedia isn't a Directory of Everything; we only repeat material which is directly sourced to reliable sources. (As a concrete example, you accused someone of being a war criminal indictable for crimes against humanity on the basis of a claim by someone who's own byline reads EvoBio MSc student at RUG in Groningen, refugee solidarity volunteer, activist, political thinker.) ‑ Iridescent 20:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• That article just screams BLP violation. Your student from Groningen says in the opening sentence, "I just began reading around this topic today, so this is by no means conclusive but just beginnings of a reading list and some notes so far." What made you think you could ever cite that? Drmies (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As a general rule, the notability guidelines for journalists are higher than you would expect. Simply writing pieces in reliable sources doesn't count to meet the WP:GNG, and the relevant SNG (WP:JOURNALIST) is significantly more exclusive than, say, some of the sports SNGs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This could be a case of coatracking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

"Songs about..."

Just a heads-up that over the past couple of days, an anonymous IP has been fairly persistently making unsourced and illogical changes to various song articles, primarily but not exclusively by changing their "Songs about..." categories to things the songs definitely aren't about. By far the most common form was the addition of songs such as "Rolling in the Deep", "You Oughta Know" and "Look What You Made Me Do" to Category:Songs about domestic violence (which, er, no) — although there were other variants as well, such as adding "Since U Been Gone" to Category:Torch songs. I've temporarily editblocked the most recent incarnation and reverted most of the obvious WTFs, but as I don't have most of these songs watchlisted I only noticed it because they hit one that I did, so I just wanted to bring this to everybody else's attention as well in case it continues. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be 2601:248:C400:CF0::/64. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Martinevans123, does Light My Fire count as a torch song? EEng 09:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Just as much as "Flashlight"... Binksternet (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, in the same way that PlentyMoreFish is about half a pound of smoked cod loin. Torchyevans123 (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC) {...or we could always ask The King... )

Whitewashing

It appears that Yessentuki4 (talk · contribs) thinks everything has Russian origins. I'm not sure if this is just WP:POINTy editing, nationalism gone amok, or some sort of misguided plot, but the editor has only made reasonably good edits to Antonov An-225 Mriya, and even those had to be reverted. There is clearly an agenda I suspect a block is in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It all looks good faith to me, though nationalistic, and buying pretty much exclusively into nationality by location of birth. There's certainly not a whole lot of it either. Yessentuki4 changed Arnault Tzanck's listed nationality to Russian (Tzanck is French but was born in Russia), marked Abraham Maslow's ethnicity as Russian Jew (which is probably not incorrect given his parents were Jews from Kiev), and marked Mykola Leontovych as a Russian composer in two articles because his place of birth was then in Russia (now Ukraine). I mean, I think it's good faith even if it's pretty clearly ethnonationalistic. My experience is that we usually give warnings and time to respond. Your only warning to Yessentuki4 was immediately followed by this thread, without giving him or her any time to respond or even to make any more edits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good-faith to me as well. In my experience, Russians often have difficulty on the topic of Russian nationality, because the nuanced difference between "русские" and "россияне" ("ethnically or culturally Russian" and "legally Russian") doesn't translate well. ‑ Iridescent 11:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a pretty common thing with Eastern European articles, unfortunatly; sometimes it can be really hard to distinguish the good faith. It's best to try to correct first, though, before reaching for the squeaky-hammer of blocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the clarification. I have sternly warned the subject. Perhaps someone could go and clarify that warning in a way that the subject may understand—I would do it, but it may seem as though I'm just piling-on—and then we can close this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Turkish air con is causing ANI trouble...

User:Turkish air con has been adding useless content to this very page. The thought of it! I still don't understand how diffs work, but all you need to do is click "edit history" right up there. The edits I've noticed have mostly been about how his car stopped working in the middle of the road. Why's that on ANI? Not to mention the swearing... Could we have an admin over here, please? TomBarker23 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I already blocked them. Looks like the same vandal that had been posting nonsense on the page previously that lead to ANI being protected. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going off to support the suggestion for a new ANI filter. TomBarker23 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if an edit filter for this LTA is even possible. I can understand hesitating to protect ANI indef, but he'll keep coming back as long as an expiry date is there. Sro23 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we even know who it is? --Tarage (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect (X) but he at least posts pertinent stuff, as opposed to the total logical disconnect we see. There's only a very small handful of LTAs I can think of who would use an autocon-buster to troll AN/I this way. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Just from the look of it, their content would have been better submitted to Not Always Right. --Auric talk 20:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-wiki legal discussion about an editor

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

---

I reverted this today which is a notification of this thread, started by a banned user. Can appropriate action be taken please. Cassianto^Talk 10:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

For clarity you're asking for the editor who made that comment to be blocked as a sock of a banned editor? Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, who cares what I'm "asking for"? I'm here to report a legal discussion against one of our editors by a banned user. What those with tools do with the evidence I have posted above is up to them. Cassianto^Talk 11:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

My point is, if you're asking for the discussion to be revdeleted due to the external link, you've made things a lot more complicated by reposting it here as we will first need to redact it from your post, then revdelete any edit between when you first posted it, and when it was redacted. If you do not feel that the link has to be deleted, this is not an issue. I have left the link for now, since it remains unclear if you feel it should be revdeleted, but if you do, please either redact the link here yourself, or let someone else do it for you. That is one of a number of reasons why it matters what adminstrative action you're asking for, but probably the most important one as the longer the link remains here, the more that will need to be revdeleted. (As it stands, helped by the time I suspect, there have been no edits to this page other than by you and me relating to this. But it's unlikely this will be the case 12 hours from now.) Incidentally, it isn't simply up to administrators, the community can, and often does on a course of action rather than it simply being up to individual administrators (or even administrators as a group). Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think people should be using their own common sense rather acting upon mine. Cassianto^Talk 11:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I am already using common sense. If I felt it needed to be revdeleted, I would have redacted the link myself. I did not do so since I do not feel it does. However you are entitled to your own POV, and if you feel it should be revdeleted, it would be better to redact now, while we as a community decide whether this is warranted. There's no much more I can do other than to offer advice on what should and should not happen.

Personally I feel that the best course of action would be to simply quietly block the editor assuming that it's clear they area sock by unilateral admin action, and then close this per WP:DENY. The evidence does look very strong even knowing next to nothing about the likely sockmaster, particularly [200] when combined with the various comments so frankly, if I had the administrative bit, I would have blocked the editor already while seeking clarification on what else you felt was warranted.

But from the tone of your comments, you seem to think this is a much bigger deal than that. I'm not personally seeing any "legal discussion about an editor". All I saw is some silly commentary about what another editor should do, specifically suggesting that they should not take legal action but should instead do other stuff. However you apparently feel differently, so there's even more reason why I'm not a good judge of whether or not the link needs to be revdeleted or any other possible action. I mean from my POV it isn't even really an attack on any other editor, except maybe a silly broadside on anyone who commented in that ANI discussion, and a minor dig on the community as a whole.

However as said, as you seem to think the external discussion is a much bigger deal than that. But unless either you or someone who feels the same offers an explanation, there's little those of us who don't feel the same can do. And so in the absence of an admin feeling the same who happens to notice this discussion, I can't see anything is likely other than my suggested course of action. (I.E. A quite block and the closure of this thread.)

Or to put it a different way, common sense tells people like me that all we should do is what I already suggested. Since you seem to want something far more, we need some explanation of what your common sense tells you, or it's simply not going to happen. In which case, instead of this lengthy aside, this discussion could have been simply ended with a simple confirmation from you that's all that was desired while we wait for an admin to notice. Ultimately we are not mind readers, so we cannot know why your common sense told you it was such a big deal that wanted something undefined but far more unless you tell us since our common sense tells us something different.

In any case, my common sense tells me there's nothing more to be gained from engaging in this further. If and when you offer an explanation of what additional action your common sense desires and why, I wish you luck in getting it.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A potentially sensitive topic should be communicated behind the scenes, such as by emailing your most trusted admin, rather than doing so where the whole world can see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I posted in good faith and hoped that owing to the allegation, it would be dealt with promptly. The drama has been made worse by those wanting "clarification" but not necessarily needing it, especially in light of them not even being an admin. I should've known better. Cassianto^Talk 14:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Next time, if any, you'll know to take it behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the sockpuppet account. I'm not sure what more there is to be done, or at least what more can be done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 14:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Recommend a WP:BOOMERANG for Cassianto. Coming to AN/I with something that admins generally can't do anything about because it's off-wiki, making vague demands to do something while refusing to suggest an intended action, and drawing wide attention to something that should possibly be revdel'd...it's pretty obvious trolling. 100.33.106.43 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Personal abuse

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

---

User:IcehouseCover has, over the last few days, repeatedly added original research at George IV State Diadem (16:20, 4 Jan, 20:47, 4 Jan, and 17:55, 7 Jan). Today, I posted a warning on his or her talk page ([201]), to which I received the following responses: "You're a twat" ([202]), and "you narrow minded twit … You'll die long before me, and I'll get my way eventually" ([203]). Firebrace (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You know it's a common practice to adjust currency values for inflation in articles? See WP:INFLATION. I've just done that for you at George IV State Diadem. I'm not saying the other editor was right (given the figures he or she was using didn't include an appropriate source per WP:INFLATION), but you weren't exactly right either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Last time I saw WP:INFLATION it came with a warning: "Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research. If you yourself do not have economic training, then please consult someone who does before using this template". The warning was removed in November 2016 ([204]) without my knowledge. But can we have something done about this troubled user who seems to enjoy the prospect of my death because he wasn't "getting his way". Thanks. Firebrace (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Firebrace, it is your responsibility to assume good faith of the other user when reverting something that is not clearly vandalism. Your first notice on the user's talk page was a level 3 warning about disruptive editing. Believe me, I know it's tiring to type out explanations instead of using templates. But you might get a better response if you revert once and offer a good-natured explanation before things escalate into an edit war.

That being said, IcehouseCover is editing with the wrong mentality and needs a clue adjustment, IMO. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Firebrace describes himself as a "Western troll", "patronising jerk", and "sarcastic asshole". I was simply speaking the language he professes to use and understand. I am no Wikipedia editing expert; I felt my edit added value to the article. If there were a better way, a collaborative user might have explained how to achieve this. The "sarcastic asshole" did not chose this avenue.

The first thing I did to contextualize the figures in the article was look up the calculated adjustments for inflation. Here nor there do I frankly care, but Firebrace, is an abusive editor, so received a complementary response from me which apparently sent him over the deep end crying and tattletaling.IcehouseCover (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, just so you know in the future, IcehouseCover, we don't really do that sort of speaking the language he professes to use and understand, particularly not where it amounts to what would be considered abusive language in a professional environment. The statements on Firebrace's userpage actually appear to be something of a "trophy gallery" of instances where he was called unkind names in disputes. While I think that sort of thing is in poor taste, it's not my userpage.

I do actually agree with you, by the way, that what you contributed to the article added value. The problem was that it needed to be supported by reliable sources. In this case, Firebrace actually knew about WP:INFLATION (though apparently didn't know it could be used for large capital figures). It would've been more helpful had Firebrace sought to explain things, say by linking to WP:INFLATION and giving his understanding of it, rather than just reverting. That said, telling Firebrace off didn't make things better.

In any event, I think that you understand the situation, and I don't think you're going to go around hurling insults in light of the above. If so, there's not much else to do here and we can all go back to editing. I really don't think there's a need for sanctions in this case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Next time I will just sink to their level. Firebrace (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is precisely the wrong takeaway. There are a ton of dispute resolution mechanisms on Wikipedia that don't require anyone being blocked or reported to ANI. My (Non-administrator comment) advice is to use those whenever possible. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• @IcehouseCover: When you add information to an article without a source, a common response is to be reverted. The correct reaction to this is not to edit war over it, nor to personally attack the editor who does so. The advice written to Firebrace above notwithstanding, what you said was not only a personal attack, but it indicated pretty severe battleground mentality over an exceedingly minor dispute over your addition of unsourced information (by the way, "I did the research myself" is literally WP:OR). Please try to stay cool and seek dispute resolution, even if you feel you've been treated unfairly.
• @Firebrace: You were not in the wrong to revert unsourced information. However all that was necessary was a level one notice regarding adding unsourced information, or even a simple note asking for a source. By edit warring, threatening a block, and issuing a serious warning for "personal analysis or synthesis", you needlessly created a heated situation that directly led to a torrent of personal attacks. I'll be honest, I'd consider blocking if those comments were unprovoked, but the simple fact of the matter that we cannot ignore is that they were provoked. Swarm ♠ 20:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Preach, brother! If only we had more like you. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh goodness, every personal attack on Wikipedia is "provoked" – in the mind of the attacker. Firebrace (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This one was "provoked in the mind of" a respected and level-headed administrator (yes, we do have a few of them) as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Firebrace, you're funny looking. Natureium (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by Pyrope

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

---

A recent discussion at WT:MOTOR has devolved into mud-slinging by Pyrope in which he has repeatedly called me a "blowhard" simply because I did not immediately respond to his comments in the way that he would have preferred, even after I took the diplomatic route. Now, referring to someone as a "blowhard" is fairly tame but it is a clear violation of WP:PERSONAL and disappointing to see from someone who takes pride in his knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately, I have come to expect this from Pyrope; I feel that he adopts a condescending attitude towards people who disagree with him and can be very hypocritical at times. Given that he has shown no contrition here, it's time for an ANI. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Beware of WP:BOOMERANGs. I suggest you go find a mediator for this lame dispute. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

G;day. Gotta love the hypocrisy of this move. Over a period of several years Prisonermonkeys has engaged in a pattern of frankly obnoxious behaviour toward other editors. Mostly this stems from a complete inability to debate and accept others' point of view, and a stubborn assertion that they are in the right even when other editors provide sourced evidence that this isn't the case. They attempt to browbeat and chastise others for their behaviour, but when their own behaviour is called into question they usually go on a tear of blue-link wikilawyering, which unfortunately in many cases merely exposes their own ignorance of the actual substance of Wikipedia's guides and policies. Surprise, surprise, this is the case again in the latest dispute, but it is only the very latest in a long line. It is a pattern of behaviour that is beyond tiresome, and has become actively disruptive, often consuming many person days of other editors' time in attempting to resolve a dispute, but almost always in vain. In this particular case I think that "blowhard" is likely the mildest term I can think of to describe their behaviour, and frankly I stand by it. Pyrope 16:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please show us evidence of an admin telling you that it's okay for you to break the rules if you think you're justified in doing it. Or let me save you the trouble by pointing out that you can't show that evidence. This is the problem: you're a hypocrite. You hold yourself to a different standard of behaviour to everyone else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's called a strawman argument. Go look it up. At no point have I ever claimed special privileges or abilities. For many years now you have been the epitome of a disruptive WP:IDHT editor, forever miring multiple other editors in pointless, circular, meaningless arguments. You keep thinking you have pulled off some great feat of logic and reasoning, only to have another editor (not just me!) pull its foundations to pieces. When that happens you change tack, argue that black is white, misquote Wikipedia policy pages, besmirch all those who point out your fundamental duplicity, and off we go again. I've just got fed up with it. You presence here makes Wikipedia a significantly less fun place to spend my free time, and if you somehow feel that I am "attacking" you in simply not rolling over and letting you carry on your disruptive behaviour you then I can't really help you. Pyrope 20:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to claim it. It's evident in your behaviour. You clearly think you're justified in launching a personal attack which means that you actually have been given a free pass by the admins or you're a hypocrite. Since the admins don't give people a licence to break the rules on a whim, it's obviously the latter. The least you can do is acknowledge that you launched a personal attack instead of acting as if this is some inconvenient distraction that you can talk your way out of. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well firstly, thanks for conforming to type. So now I don't have to find proof for you because it is implicit in my behaviour, is it? That'll be one of your quick switches then. The besmirching is right there too. As for the hypocrisy, one aspect of your behaviour that I haven't complained about is your own propensity toward, as you might put it, "personal attacks". My complaints stem directly and explicitly from your obstructive and disruptive behaviour on talk pages. If you are going to start throwing around personal slurs such as "hypocrite" then have the decency to know what it means. Pyrope 20:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you don't have to find proof of your behaviour because I've done it for you. It's ironic that you criticise me for not providing evidence but then ignore it when I do. Are you really so arrogant that you think you can ignore this? You made a personal attack and now you cannot even acknowledge that you did it. I can only conclude from this that you think the rules apply differently to you and I'm wondering what you're basing this on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Another strawman, cute. You asked me for "evidence of an admin telling you that it's okay for you to break the rules", remember? As I have never claimed that I am of course unable to comply. If you read that into my behaviour then that's on you, and is rather for you to prove and not me. I am not sure how a blue-link to the original post on this board (all of, what, six inches up my screen... odd) helps your cause here. I am not ignoring evidence because you haven't provided any of anything other than the fact that I don't particularly like you. This much I knew and so, I assume, do the other people reading this. Pyrope 20:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

In case it was not obvious, all I am trying to do here is get you to acknowledge that you made a personal attack. Since you are unwilling or unable to do that, I would like you to show me why WP:PERSONAL does not apply in this instance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

My comments were related directly to your actions. If you don't like people thinking of you in that way, don't behave that way. Pyrope 21:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if this is an issue, it seems a very minor one at best i.e. not something for which there's any chance of anything happening at ANI. If you're claiming this is enough of a long term problem to warrant action, you're going to need to provide evidence. We can't rely on what you've "come to expect". Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The productivity of this thread can be modelled by the function y = -(x^3 + 7b) where x is the number of comments placed in this thread, and b is the number of respondees to it. It is unlikely that this trend will change. Drop the sticks and walk away. This isn't sufficient for even a warning. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

By my calculations, including my comment, Y currently stands at -2232. Cheers all! Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Blowhard" is a pretty harmless epithet, Prisonermonkeys, and I'm no admirer of your own "diplomatic route" either, as I saw it on WT:MOTOR. If I myself had asked repeatedly for sources, as Pyrope did, and you had tap-danced around it ("Don't interpret my failure to provide sources just now as an inability to provide sources"), I'd be irritated too, and might possibly have called you a blowhard, or more likely a filibusterer. Don't be annoying and then expect administrators to support an ANI report about a so-called personal attack. As for your repeated references to the "rules", Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I'll close this waste of time now. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC).

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

User:Aroniel2

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

---

A Nazi fanboy User:Aroniel2 (106 edits since: 2009-05-09) posts raw links to Hitler speeches and vehemently racist and antisemitic blogs associated with the White Network full of articles like the "Holo Frauds & Quacks" and "the Jewish Problem and the HoloHoax". This one account better be blocked indefinitely as soon as possible. Poeticbent talk 04:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Aroniel2 (talk · contribs · count) : Gleiwitz incident: Difference between 3 revisions including and

References

• Yeah, there was some undiscovered OR/SYNTH that this editor inserted, from as best I can tell, to tie fairly mainstream Catholic social teaching to Franco's National Catholicism. It looks like much of this editor's work involves a rather... unconventional view of the Church and fascism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What you say is absolute nonsense. I post Hitler speech as EVIDENCE he did not mention the incident as excuse for his invasion or Poland. If he did mention it during his speech, please let me know. A Fact is a Fact and during his Speech he did not mention it. I say there is only one single source to the false flag theory, a man under arrest. That FACT is universally accepted, and noone else has found any other source to the theory. I mention there are historians that do not believe in the False Flag theory which is true as it is not universally accepted fact. Please let me know if Hitler used this incident in his declaration of war speech and I will erase my edit. I will be waiting. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroniel2 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note: User:Aroniel2 does not know where to stop. He just sent me a email from Wikpedia with the exact copy of the above (unsigned) post, with one extra line (which isn't here) reading: "Let people see all theories and all evidence. Do not try to brainwash people in any given ideology." He says (above) "there are historians" ... but cited antisemitic, Holocaust denying and racist spooks. And now, Aroniel2 is edit-warring like there was no tomorrow. Poeticbent talk 18:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gleiwitz_incident&type=revision&diff=819133541&oldid=819129375

The reality that the "attack" on a German radio station by SS men dressed in Polish uniforms, who left behind dead men (taken from a concentration camp), also in Polish uniforms is generally accepted by all creditable historians as the deliberate creation of a false casus belli for the invasion of Poland. I have never seen any mainstream historian doubt it, and the amount of detail to back up the story is appreciable -- it is no more a "theory" than The Holocaust. Anyone who doesn't accept that as historical reality is living in a fantasy WP:FRINGE world, and their work on other subjects should be subjected to extremely close inspection by those familiar with the details of those subjects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, anyone suggesting a site strongly involved in holocaust denial be used as a source probably should be WP:INDEF since at a minimum their understanding of WP:RS seems to far gone to be salvagable. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• The editor is also spamming to numerous articles their own interpretation of #2105 of the Catholic Catechism, using only a citation to the part of the Catechism, which does not support the interpretation provided, only the text. These have been removed by various editors, and the editor has been warned (by me) not to spam or violate WP:NPOV or add what is essentially unsourced information.
  They clearly need to have their edits kept an eye on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ten dollars to anyone who can diagram that last sentence. EEng 11:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked this user indefinitely for POV editing, not that that's a strong enough term. Presenting racist points of view as reliable, neutral information is unacceptable. Swarm ♠ 20:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Admitted meatpuppetry and proxy editing for blocked users

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

---

M.A. Martin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here. John from Idegon (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse-me John from Idegon, could you explain to me what is this about, please ? I don't understand what "meatpuppetry and proxy editing" is, and you refer to your question about the use I made of "we", as I told you "we" referred to the friends who helped my collecting sources, among whom some of them have written articles on related subjects. Not any of them have ever been blocked from Wikipedia, if that's what you want to know, but blocked on Twitter, Facebook, our personnal computers, etc. And for any other question, I'll be happy to get advice and help from you and other administrators about the access to draft / sandbox about my article on Vanessa Beeley. Thank you very much !--M.A. Martin (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean Twitter, right? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sure, Twitter, I'll correct at once. Thank you. But could you please explain to me what is this all about ? (I'm not a native English speaker) I'm working on very controversial and complicated subjects, directly linked on propaganda, and it's quite complicated, even with reliable sources from The Guardian and several main secondary sources... M.A. Martin (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and am not involved in this issue, but from the diff provided it looks like concerns were raised about your use of the word "we", wikipedia policy requires that an account is used only by 1 person, and calling yourself "we" implies shared use. You have also been accused of meatpuppetry (recruiting a bunch of people who agree with you to sway consensus in a content dispute). Tornado chaser (talk)

Thank you very much for your reply, Tornado chaser. Yes, indeed, we are a small group, outside of Wikipedia, to work together to collect sources and help each other, but when I first tried to make an account reflecting this "Challenge propaganda group", I was explained on Wikipedia (not here, in my mother tongue), that this could be seen as a group of pressure or lobby, and that an account had to be personnal (which was the case). When I explained where did my username came from, this was good for them, and they accepted my articles and helped me. Here on English Wikipedia, this was diferent, andI had to change my username to replace it by my personnal name (which took me quite long to understand). I've understood that I needed to be the only author of the article, with responsibility on what I write. Which is the case. But I thought I could mention the people who helped me gathering sources and preparing the subject of the article without any problem, because this is not on Wikipedia, but way before I published here (for instance, someone who speaks better English than me can help me correct a sentence, but not here in Wikipedia drafts, no, at home !).

As for recruiting a bunch of people who agree with me to sway consensus in a content dispute, I don't know to tell anything like this about me. Anyway, even if I had this idea (but I don't, I don't think number matters, I think facts matter), I can't because I have no friends who have an account here, I was a complete beginner not long ago and I asked for much help on Wikipedia in my mother tong !

Propaganda is really a complicated thing to deal with, but I really didn't think it would be the case here too... thank you very much for your explanations. talkM.A. Martin (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon I hope you can read all my explanations above and tell me wether it is a problem or not, please.M.A. Martin (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the concerns arose when you talked about blocked users it sounded like you were editing on behalf of others who were blocked from wikipedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand better. Thank you. Tornado chaser This is not the case. I was just trying to explain my page was not an "attack" page, I am just a human rights defender, and I don't aim at attacking anyone, even a propagandist, and I wanted to explain ths were not our methods, not our ways of thinking when we gathered information and sources, this is the way of doing of propagandists. I also spoke about insults, harassment, hacking computers... this is not on Wikipedia ! Here, I even thought I could find help to restore the truth, which an Encyclopdy does, and I still hope it will be possible !M.A. Martin (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think M.A. Martin was talking about editors who had been blocked from Wikipedia based on that post, but was stating that he couldn't give information about his compatriots because he was concerned for their safety. That said, describing oneself as editing on behalf of a group of "human rights defenders" and talking about "propagandists" and wanting to use Wikipedia to "restore the truth" raises serious concerns about what M.A. Martin is editing Wikipedia to accomplish. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mendaliv for your answer. Yes, that's what I meant. Just to be precise, I didn't say I was editing on behalf on a group, just that this group helped me to gather information sources and think about the subject previously, because some of them share common interests with subjects that are linked to mine. What I write and publish is my own text (but that does not mean I couldn't ask help to correct a sentence to a friend before writing down here ?) (English is not my mother tongue). Am I the only one to do so ?

As for your other concern, I fully understand it, it's better to have fears and be cautious on such subjects, because, yes, it is a very controversial subject. I said "propaganda" because itt was established as such, by main media. And as it deals with conspiracy theories, there are fake information that were proved, this is why I'm talking about restoring the truth, maybe it's not the good vocabulary, I don't know. But for a similar article in my mother tongue, I was helped so that it could fit the Wikipedia rules. I'd like to be helped here as well, but I was told by the administrator who deleted my article that I would be blocked if I continue, so I think I won't dare it, because it's important to me to be able to edit again in my mother tongue on several subjects, including this one.M.A. Martin (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have made it clear on M.A. Martin's talk page that POV pushing regarding their chosen topic will not be permitted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen³²⁸, yes, this was clear, and this is what I intended to do, I'd like to be able to discuss this and build the article with help, but I don't want to be blocked.

Or if any of you are interested, I think you have access to my deleted article and sources (I have some more I can give you), you can also write an article on Vanessa Beeley. It would be great. Thank you.M.A. Martin (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@M.A. Martin: Yes it is ok to ask others for help and advice, you just can't give them your password to edit, ect. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. No, sure, I won't, they don't even know how this works here, as for the help I asked it long before started my draft here. Now all I would need would be help from wikipedia editors to manage to write an article on this subject without being deleted and blocked, which until now doesn't really seem easy to achieve.M.A. Martin (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• @M.A. Martin: When you respond to a comment on a talk page, please indent your response one more tab that the comment you're responding to. You do this by adding an additional colon (:). Thus if the comment you're responding to has no colons, your response should have 1, if it has 1 (or an asterisk) yours should have 2, etc. In this way the discussion is easier to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

My concerns about meat and proxy have been addressed, but there remains WP:NOTHERE, for which there seems a clear case. John from Idegon (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please, John from Idegon, I would have loved that you answered my questions above or that you would have told me what was the problem about. So, please, may I know why you think I am a doing clear case of WP:NOTHERE? You already claimed I "Admitted meatpuppetry", whih I did not. So please understand my question. What would be my aim, according to you, other than building an encyclopedia ? Why would articles on Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley would not be useful in Wikipedia and would not be useful for readers ? But if that's really alarming you so much, please read what I answered on my talk page, and you'll be happy to know that by now I've understood it'll be too complicated for me to struggle against your claims and reports, added to the ones of an other editor and of an administrator who denies my sources while acknowledging he hadn't read them all, or hadn't read them before deleting my article, so I prefer to give up. I can't say I'm happy about that, because is really think one of the role of an Ecyclopedia is to share information, and to help people findind neutral and unbiased information, which is more important because more difficult, on such subjects as current war propaganda, and I don't really see what English Wikipedia community nor readers will benefit from my giving up. I really think the only ones who will benefit of this are the one who defend war propaganda.M.A. Martin (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• M.A. Martin has been indeff'd by Guy for WP:NOTHERE. Someone can probably close this. John from Idegon (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Saboteurest

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

---

Saboteurest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is randomly reverting my edits (see here and here) and those of Joeyconnick (see here). It's clearly retaliation for Joey and I reverting their changes to Light rail in North America, which are in opposition to previous talk page discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything but this is how my attempt to discuss the issue with the user went at Talk:Burnaby-class ferry § abbreviation or not. I can't speculate as to their original reason for the revert but I don't feel they are discussing the issue in good faith. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted by more than one editor. Then you went on and on about absolute nonsense that wasn't related to the topic. You claim that the abbreviation BC for British Columbia is "well known". Maybe it's well known in your home country of Canada, but try using it in France, or Brazil, or Algeria. It is not known worldwide. Saboteurest (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Then why did you perform this unjustified revert where you reversed my removal of a similar abbreviation? And why did you revert my lengthy edit at J Church, which consisted of well-cited history? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Guys, guys, preferably don't use ANI as your one-stop solution. It doesn't even seem like you guys tried any sort of dispute resolution, a few arguments are bound to come around here, there, I don't quite see anything that exaggerates to the level of admin attention — this is merely a case of differing opinion. Let's cut to the core and the only thing I see is the battleground behaviour, we can come to compromise here, being my point. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 17:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Assistance requested reverting unsourced changes to Super Bowl LII

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

---

• Super Bowl LII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 68.192.253.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP 68.192.253.189 is continuously making an unsourced change without looking at the whole paragraph in which they are editing. The Winter Olympics were never held in 2012. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Radiation15

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

---

• Radiation15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I previously highlighted issues with this editor, and Radiation15 was blocked 36 hours for adding unsourced content. After Radiation15 added more unsourced content, I reverted it and offered to help find sources if necessary. This follows prior offers of help from others. Instead of taking up the offers, he replied, "all you do is sniff cocaine". He added more unsourced content after this, so I warned him again. His reply was, "NinjaRobotPirate, go fuckin die. Besides you’re not a reliable source either. All you do is sniff cocaine and pleasure yourself with porn." I decided to just try to ignore it. However, he has begun edit warring to restore unsourced content at List of Columbia Pictures films (diff #1, diff #2). Can someone please indefinitely block this editor for disruption and personal attacks? Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
and now RickinBaltimore is restoring the unsourced production companies? With some note about the release dates? The release dates are not in contention. The fact that Columbia Pictures is the production company is the contentious statement here. This is getting immensely frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC) NRP, I'm looking into this now, if I'm incorrect, I'll revert. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC) I am really frustrated that a member of Arbcom is edit warring with me to restore unsourced, contentious content. Holy crap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC) The movie site ITSELF lists Black Rock. I'm not edit warring, I'm actually trying to get the sourcing needed for the article and trying to improve it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC) As I said on your talk page, we require a reliable source to identify the production companies, not a logo on an official website. Interpreting what a logo means from a primary sources is original research. I explained this in the copious messages I wrote on Radiation15's talk page, which you apparently didn't read in your zeal to revert me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC) how about this from the New Indian Express, which itself was from AFP? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Yes, I'm sure that's very interesting, but it has nothing to do with Radiation15 telling me that I snort cocaine and adding unsourced content. I see the fact that he insulted me means nothing to you, and you'd rather argue with me over content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC) That would have been a more-useful complaint a month ago, when those edits actually happened. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• The issue is not about who is "right" or "wrong" about that Columbia Pictures list. The issue is that we have an editor who has continued to add unsourced content (e.g. [205], [206]) after being asked not to, and after being given a final warning on this in December. And who has responded to criticism over this with personal attacks. A member of ArbCom has come and cleaned up the mess on one occasion but I don't really see the positives in this editor's ongoing participation. I can't see that he was ever warned for those personal attacks, so I'll do that now. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 18:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• Swarm, I don't know who you blocked, but, Radiation15 ain't it.[207] Mr rnddude (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mr rnddude: Thanks! I guess I never actually blocked the user! Luckily, I checked my log and didn't erroneously block anyone by mistake. I was worried for a second. Swarm ♠ 19:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

ford motor company

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

---

flighttime ruined my editing that im trying to improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitopavlovivit (talk • contribs) 05:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Three problems that I see, @Vitopavlovivit:

1. You did not notify FlightTime that a discussion is open at ANI which is about this user. You are always required to notify a user if you report them to ANI.
2. Your edits to the Ford article were problematic and wrecked a table at the bottom of the page. FlightTime was right to revert and even noted in the edit summary you were editing in good faith.
3. ANI is not the right venue for this. You have not even attempted to communicate with the user about this issue. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jprg1966: Thank you for the ping. It seems my edit and summary is not being challenged, if not ping me and I'll reply. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Blocking !vote going on at WP:COIN

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

---

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management. Admin input would be welcome. Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI is for reporting incidents, admin attention to other threads at AN. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 17:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User: Kevinwoverstreet

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

---

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

This user's entire contribution list consists of self-promotion that has been repeatedly reverted. They also created the page [[Kevin Overstreet] (speedy deleted both for copyvio and for non-notability.) An edit-block might help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:5A40:E7:5862:4EB3:95A:369 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It might, if they had edited since last May... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat on Igor Durlovski

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

---

• Igor Durlovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

per this diff. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for the unambiguous legal threat and the disruptive editing - TNT^❤ 20:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Three, count them, three minutes. Could be a little more efficient, don't you think;) -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:MizukaS

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

---

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

Earlier today a user by the name of MizukaS is fighting over an issue on the Cristina Vee page on NOT allowing to have any miscellaneous roles on her table. I explained to him about it but he refuses to make an agreement and even responded way out of line with this edit See footnote: do not include additional voices. Some don't even have any reliable sources. Also, don't "strike 1" me. You're not a mod, so don't even try to threaten me.

And Here are the reverts made by this user.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [208]
2. [209]
3. [210]
4. [211]
5. [212]

Honestly I don't know what to do with him/her and continues to remain unreasonable over resolving an issue that's been going on since last year's incident regarding having additional voices or others on the actor's pages: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_69#Inclusion_of_additional_voices_in_anime_voice_actor_articles.

While he is new to this issue he refuses to accept having the background voices on her page regardless If I put in the sources. And this is all from the talk page: "Various_voices"_is_too_vague_for_inclusion. I'm in a Pickle I'm not asking for a suspension or block but I find him to be VERY unreasonable on coming up with a solution!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• It seems to me that perhaps, you both are engaging in an edit war? Please try using the talk page. I have requested a temporary page protection. House1090 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• AnimeDisneylover95, you should edit using reliable sources, not Tweets by the subject. While we're on the topic, typically those articles are nothing but lists--resumes, that is. They are a disgrace to Wikipedia, and this isn't the worst of em. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• @AnimeDisneylover95: You are required to notify MizukaS on their talk page that they are mentioned here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Done by another user. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

First and foremost, I'm male. Please use male pronouns only. In any case.... Well, you've done it, ADL. And what's more, you've only provided one side of the story. Allow me to fill in the rest. So let's start with the factor that you've been notably hostile at me over a subject you do not wish to discuss. Yes, we all have topics that we'd rather avoid getting involved in if it can be helped, but you seem to want to get involved in the most trivial aspects of an article. I think your behavior in this discussion (an attempt made by me to set aside our differences) and the diffs that I am about to list below suggests that you are someone that cannot stay calm.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Figure 1

• Figure 2

• Figure 3

One thing that I don't understand is why ADL is yelling at my face about this. I even referenced the footnote in the template for him to see, but he just refuses to have any form of discussion at all. I clearly explained my perspective on why extremely vague tweets should be excluded, but it seems clear to me that ADL continues to refuse communicating calmly. I also read the discussion he linked me, and honestly, if the consensus from that discussion is so clear, why isn't it a policy yet?

There is a huge difference between including additional voices that are listed in the credits roll, and one that is only supported by a mere tweet. I only removed all the additional voice credits because there is a footnote in the template that says that we should exclude all of them. In any case, what I'm advocating for is not the exclusion of all self-pub Twitter sources, but for additional voice credits that are supported only by a tweet, and nothing else, to be removed. In fact, judging by that tweet, it's extremely vague as to what role the subject is even involved with. And due to its vagueness, it could very well be a crew role, and not a voice role. I challenged ADL on this aspect, and asked him whether or not he could verify how the subject was involved. Of course, he just ignores me and keeps spouting more of his flames.

PS: That "strike 1" thing is something you pulled, ADL. I find it very offensive that you think you could act like an admin and boss me around just because you don't agree with someone. I have made attempts to try to resolve this peacefully, but I'm afraid it might be vain, unfortunately. MizukaS (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Quite simply, use reliable sources, 95 and a tweet is not that. House1090 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@AnimeDisneylover95 and MizukaS: You're both past WP:3RR. Would you like a block or to refrain from editing the article for a week and use the talk page only? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to just refrain from editing the article for a week (Jan 18). And I would like to discuss the matter civilly using just the article's talk page. MizukaS (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I would not want a block today over what happened today, I just got frustrated today with MS over an issue on just one "tweet" on the Cristina Vee page regarding a role on a show she was involved in. The thing is it is the same "rinse and repeat cycle" I've been seeing regarding "Additional voices" and "Tweets" not allowed on this site be brought up again ever since it was mutually resolved back in June of last year. I had a lot of exhausting conflicts many users and admins in the past, many of which I have been giving warnings and resolutions. But to be honest I just want to just resolve this issue already, I'm very exhausted as of today--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• NeilN I feel a block is necessary at this point. I've been keeping an eye on them and it is pretty messy. Best, House1090 (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • House1090 & NeilN, I don't want to have a block, I just got frustrated today with MS that the issue over just one "tweet" on the Cristina Vee page is the same "rinse and repeat cycle" I've been seeing regarding "Additional voices" and "Tweets" not allowed here from June of last year be brought up again. I had a lot of exhausting conflicts many users and admins in the past, many of which I have been giving warnings and resolutions. But to be honest I just want to just resolve this issue already, I'm very exhausted as of today.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• @AnimeDisneylover95: I'll take this as agreement that you will not edit the article for a week. And remember, there's no hurry to get content in or out. If you're frustrated, please look at WP:DRR for other options to bring more eyes to the dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Jim1138

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

---

This User insists on removing my edits concering an article on Urinary Cathetization, despite that it is well known in the medical community that the procedure is carried out as a sterile procedure. (In fact, all the instructional material I can find on the material explicitly states that sterile technique applies, from youtube on up to virtually every other site that has material on the subject matter.) I therefore edited and inserted a citation needed tag in lieu of the reference, as I could not find a non-paid reference to cover the subject matter adequately and simplisticly enough for the needs of most non-technical readers. I have requested the user to stop modifing my edits without discussing revisions on the article talk page first. The User appears to be using policies incorrectly, namely WP:verfiablity and WP:Burden while ignoring WP:Consensus, and the policy concerning the citation needed tag. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• I do not see what Jim is supposed to have done wrong. What I did see in your edits is that you frequently fail to cite sources, that you cite primary sources, and that you think totally unreliable sources (like this one) are acceptable. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Another example of unsourced content. Or is it wp:OR? Vicarioius liability Nice edit summary btw: Edit to discuss criminal law ramifications. Please do not modify this edit without discussing on the article Talk page and first obtaining consensus. Jim1138 (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Karma-rang in 3... 2... 1... Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 07:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Sounds like a job for Catheter Cowboy! EEng 10:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Call John Oliver then... Guy (Help!) 13:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Amazing

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

---

It just never ceases to amaze me how vandals seem to think the same old tricks will work. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 07:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Blocked, Tagged, Ignore. Regards SoWhy 08:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Revdel request

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

---

• Bartholomew.J.Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is clearly NOTHERE and his edits may need to be revdeleted [213] –Ammarpad (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Regards SoWhy 08:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: I've blocked the account and oversighted the edits. If you come across something like that again, please email the oversight team (oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org, Special:EmailUser/Oversight, or any of the details on WP:RFO) rather than posting it here where lots of people are likely to see it before it goes. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Was about to email OS when I saw you had already handled it. Nothing more to do here. Regards SoWhy 08:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Clear legal threat

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

---

DJOWEN73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Left a clear legal threat on my talk page The view of the Sandon School is that this is vindictive. Therefore we will be referring the mater to our legal department. Jim1138 (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Blocked Regards SoWhy 09:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Funkygishh

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

---

Since October, Funkygissh have received six messages about creating unreferenced/poorly referenced articles but has not responded to any. These include unreferenced biographies of living people. With Georgina Adam, I asked Funkygissh if the external links were actually sources rather than suggestions for further reading; no reply. I then moved it to draftspace to avoid it being tagged for deletion, with a message that it could easily be moved back/submitted via WP:AFC if/when references were added, and that references on biographies of living people need to also be WP:INLINECITED. No direct response, just Funkygissh moving the article from draft straight back to mainspace without addressing the serious referencing issue.

I have directed this editor towards WP:BURDEN, WP:V and WP:Communication is required. Many of the editor's creations have been deleted; this sourcing issue and lack of communication is causing other editors a lot of work at New Page Patrol and AfD. I would like Funkygissh to add sources to Georgina Adam, in future source properly and communicate here that they understand the issue and will respond to messages in future. Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 19:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:BTechTV

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

---

This user has not been answering the numerous concerns raised at User talk:BTechTV, although responded to an editor on another issue in November, so knows how to use the page and is clearly reading some messages. BTechTV creates quite a lot of articles, and it is taking up a lot of other editors' times trying to resolve things by deletion discussions and at New Page Patrol.

Despite warnings, BTechTV continues to create unreferenced articles such as Thailand women's national under-20 volleyball team with potential copyright issues too. BTechTV has refused to answer questions about whether by 'external links' they mean sources rather than suggestions for further reading. I have directed BTechTV to WP:BURDEN, WP:V and WP:Communication is required, and have been sending warnings for several months (17 messages just from me, on many different articles - messages from other editors too!) No response at all, and continues producing these articles.

I would like BTechTV to join this discussion, add their sources to their creations, and add sources and respond to messages in the future. Boleyn (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked this user indefinitely. I've made it clear to them that they will be welcome to edit again once they take steps to address the issues, which are fairly serious. Swarm ♠ 19:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Misguided edit?

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

---

This user page edit seems counterproductive. Granted the user's first edit was vandalistic but aren't user pages given more leeway in terms of choice of language? 86.218.83.48 (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Page deleted. It contained what is probably a real person's name and not-so-flattering assertions. --NeilN

Perfect. Thank you for the followup. 86.218.83.48 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Question regarding interaction bans

Is linking to an edit by an editor who is party to an IBAN, which is obviously not an IBAN violation a breach of an IBAN? As in, is blatant block shopping a violation of an IBAN? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Typo fixed. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 17:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the second phrasing: I'd say "absolutely". Regarding the first, "Not necessarily, but likely so." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, I thought I was going to talk about dropping sticks, until I saw what's going on here. There's no obvious violation here, but I think at one point the patience will start to wear down. Alex Shih (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, DS, if you don't want to be reported for IBAN vios, you could stop editing pages immediately after CWG... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes&diff=prev&oldid=818787054 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Still don't know what the IBAN policy is then Sarek? And I was pinged to that cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I know you were pinged to it, that's why you're not already blocked. However, most people under IBANs go out of their way not to appear to violate them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

What Sarek said. Whether or not you were pinged is not the point. You cannot continue to keep commenting after them while complaining about them. This is a two-way interaction ban, and you also must exercise the same kind of sensitivity that you have been demanding. Alex Shih (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:IBAN: Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to: make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly. - If you are under an IBAN and link to an edit by someone you are IBANed with, that is making reference to them. The exception would be where you are reporting what you perceive to be a violation in the correct forum. Almost all admins would also consider a request where a diff is provided as part of a 'Is this is a violation of the IBAN?' query legitimate. If said admin then said 'no' and its forumshopped until an admin says 'yes' then I would expect some form of extended discussion about it in the event of sanctions. If someone you are in an IBAN with is pinging you, it would depend on the circumstances. This is why general questions suck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(ecx2)Like I said, read the IVAN policy, you already got it wrong once. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, so looked a bit further. Someone you are in an IBAN with linking to your edits and asking an admin is not a violation. Any more than you linking to their edits if you were querying if it is a violation would be. If a third party pings you to something (because you both edit in the same area) as long as you are not directly interacting, its not a violation. The whole point of an IBAN however is that you both stay away from each other. That almost always means, do not edit directly after them if you are both editing the same article lest accusations of stalking appear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Darkness Shines, are you seriously taunting us to read IBAN policy? Alex Shih (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I said Sarek needs to, he already blocked me once and had to unblick cos he made policy up on the fly. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, I took a look at the two interaction-banned editors in question here with the editor interaction analyser, looking only at edits made since their two-way IBAN was put in place. This was the result. It's not proof of a violation by any means, and I'm not saying a violation definitely took place, but to my uneducated eye it doesn't look like either editor has fully embraced the spirit of the IBAN. (For comparison, I also looked at five other IBAN'd editors over the same time period, and four out of five had 0 pages in common. The fifth only had large-scale discussion pages like ANI in common; no articles or article talk pages.) Marianna251TALK 17:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Its not particularly useful in this case due to the overlapping subject area and that one (for a significant period of their editing) was effectively a SPA. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough; that's why I only looked at edits since the IBAN. I wasn't aware that one editor had such a narrow focus. Marianna251TALK 17:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a benighted observer here, but even if there's some reason for overlapping editing, the timing of, say, the first 5-10 interactions seem instructive to me, if not dispositive. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Non-Administrative commitment: [214] @ Alex Shih I feel like someone is breathing down my neck and following my steps and right on my heels.[215] [216] P.S. I followed SarekOfVulcan (talk) to this page and this is what I wrote [217]. I only requested that I not be followed, as [218] this is tiresome, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Help Please, help stoping the stockingstalking - WP:HOUNDING: I post this [219] on CYBERPOWER Talking Page and in less than 20mins [220] shows up. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry... what the what??? EEng 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

In straightforward terms: I had been TBAN by Cyber from posting on 'Patriot Prayer' pages due to my interaction with D/S. I went to Cyber's page to ask him if an image of The Proud Boys at a patriot prayer rally wearing their black polo shirt and yellow pinstripe unofficial uniform violated the TBAN and within 20 minutes that exact image ended up on 'Patriot Prayer' page mislabeled as Joey Gibson by D/S. This is now the second time that this is happened since the IBAN has been in effect, that I have posted to an administrator's page and within hours things that popped up on Wiki by D/S. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No, what's "stoping the stocking"? Sounds like something I'd ask the dry cleaner to do. EEng 11:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Look at all the images of the rally [221] and those of Joey Gibson from the rally [222]; why use my image of '3 Proud Boys' and (mis)-labeling it as Joey Gibson [223] within 20mins of my posting it on Cyber's TP? This is stalking but worse is the poor quality of the editing this stalking has caused. There were plenty of images of Joey Gibson at that rally, why use mine and do it incorrectly? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

For clarity: "stalking". -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed my spelling error and was informed I should have used WP:HOUNDING to be more accurate. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Right, I'm pointing out three things. 1 Gilmore posting in this section violates the IBAN 2 Cyberpower's talk page is on my watch list, so no interactions have taken place. 3 It is not me following anyone, as is obvious given I was discussing The Root as a source on the Proud Boys article, and Surprise This block shopping needs to be stopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• BTW, 4 Gilmore commenting on my edit to Patriot Prayer violates not only the IBAN, it violates his TBAN. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Note -@ Alex Shih, the admission of actions taking actions based upon my posting to Cyberpower's Talking Page. I post to Cyber's page and actions are taken within 20 mins, clearly shows that the post is in reaction. IBAN [224] "A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other." I just want to be left alone, not followed or have my actions followed by a reaction within minutes of my posting. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban evasion

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

---

In December, Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned for 3 months from Israel-related pages. WP:TBAN says:

"a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:

• weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;"

Today, he removed and modified (and was reverted) several parts of the section "Views on antisemitism and Israel" in George Soros: [225], [226]. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This would certainly seem to be an up-and-down breach of the ban, but I want to hear an explanation from Avaya1 (talk · contribs) before looking at what action should be taken. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC).

I agree that this appears to be a breach of the topic ban. Drmies was the administrator who imposed the topic ban. Perhaps he has a comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

These are quite blatant. Thank you Cullen328. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a vio of the topic ban, but I'm not sure what the correct next step is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I was attempting to remove off-topic content about Steinmetz with this edit and Hungary. I was removing the non-Israeli content about Steinmetz and Hungary. The Israeli stuff I have left intact. The original section was written by me and is largely about Israel, this was back in May before my topic ban. There's since been added paragraphs about Steinmetz and extra parts about Hungary which is off-topic to antisemitism and Israel. Avaya1 (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether you wrote it yourself or not, as our topic bans do not currently have a feature to physically prevent users from editing in the banned areas, this is still a breach of your topic ban. I don't believe you maliciously breached the ban, but WP:TBAN is quite explicit. I'll let other admins decide what to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In these edits, Avaya1 removed two (and modified one) pieces of text, which are directly related to Israel and contains word "Israel". --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lankiveil, Cullen328, Drmies, and Kudpung: What are the next steps? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, we could block! But it's been a few days, and they haven't done it again, so that would really be punitive, even if a pattern had been established, that this wasn't just a one-off. Or we could give Avaya1 a stern warning and say "if you do that again we will certainly block you". Cullen? Drmies (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Since I've been pinged: I also think the stern warning would be appropriate. Just because we can block doesn't mean we have to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think at this point a block would not be preventative. That being said, this violation should certainly be noted and logged so that it can be factored into the sanction for any future breaches. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC).

I have warned Avaya1 that any further violation of their topic ban will result in a block. Avaya1 has not edited in recent days. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Arthistorian1977 and NPR right

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

---

Moved to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Arthistorian1977 and NPR right

Primefac (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Barnstar only account?

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

---

Chopard geneve 007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:‎Chopard geneve 007 seems to have no purpose other that issuing barnstars, not exactly sure what his motives are but wondering about WP:NOTHERE Tornado chaser (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Barnstars are actually a positive thing so NOTHERE doesn't really apply. What's to note is it's essentially a pointless SPA atm. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 17:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: When you filed this, they had only had an account here for fifteen minutes! As things stand now, they're clearly just feeling around their talk page and getting used to their new-found powers  :) WP:RETENTION, anyone?! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Indeffed as NOTHERE and very likely some form of block evasion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) It looks to me like Chopard geneve 007 went to the history of Rolex Daytona and is handing barnstars to the editors that have worked on this article. Nothing actionable, IMO. I'll stop by and send an invite to the Teahouse. No longer needed, it seems... –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That's probably David Adam Kess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There's also Special:Contributions/Dr.bb8. Peter James (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. That's also a Kess sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Y'all missed one - Benjamin Franklin 007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Scr★pIron^IV 19:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that.  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Requesting action for 73.251.37.0

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

---

This IP is repeatedly making bad edits, and is not responding to either edit comments or talk page notices. He seems to be basically trying to players to the rosters in various NFL seasons for a team, but is getting the formatting wrong and is not providing any citation. I've been a New England fan for decades, and I don't recognize "David Struges" as a quarterback the team had, so I suspect this is some form of self-promotion.

Specific edits to look at: 2008 season, 2007 season, 2006 season.

Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 23:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked a week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Found another obvious sock

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

---

I'm running out of clever titles, so straight to the point. Anuragbasu was indefinitely blocked by User:RickinBaltimore as a spam/advertising-only account. The above mentioned blocked account then created another account, which I found via the user creation log. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 00:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. "If at first you don’t succeed, then skydiving is not for you." <- To compensate for the lack of a clever title. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• For those of us momentarily confused by how this is possible, the second account was created before the first one was blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Acroterion

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

---

I would say this guy may bear watching. He seems a bit overly aggressive and unpleasant in my slight dealing with him. I hope he leaves me alone and that I hear nothing more at all of this matter. What prompts my complaint is an exchange on the talk page for article on Aleksandr Torshin as well as a message left on my page. Badiacrushed (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Is this really the kind of ANI we want?

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

---

[227], [228], [229], [230] Paul August ☎ 00:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, Paul, you're disrupting ANI!!1! --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

In general, I'm okay with some humor here to keep spirits up, ease tension, etc. - but when it's used in an appropriate and kind-hearted level (of course). When humor is reverted (especially here) - it means that someone found the humor to not be appropriate in the right time or place, and it shouldn't be reverted or restored again. Appropriate humor is usually always welcome anywhere, but keeping ANI on-topic and sterile should take precedence over any humor added if someone objects to it. An example of good humor being Floquenbeam's comment above :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Damn. I didn't even get a credit. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 00:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Aren't discussions about ANI on-topic? And why would we want to keep ANI "sterile"? And are you saying that if anyone objects to someone else's post they are free to simply delete it? Paul August ☎ 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Paul August - No :-). I was only specifically speaking about comments made to ANI discussions with humor as the sole intent, not any other kind of comments or responses made that are within the topic of the given report or discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Well comming as it did from Biszilla, humor is always involved, but I didn't consider that to have been its "sole intent", I thought its intent was rather to congratulate and encourage. Paul August ☎ 02:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Paul August - Sure, totally. Maybe I'm just confused over this discussion here. I'm pretty certain that you were trying to bring the back-and-fourth reverting and adding to issue; I was just making a statement in general and not specifically taking the specific Bishzilla changes into account :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Recommending a trouting to the two edit warring ninnies. Whichever one of you was technically right, you both lost the high ground. --Tarage (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• It may or may not be the ANI we want, but it's the ANI we deserve. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Not the one I deserve. Paul August ☎ 02:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Obviously that makes you Batman. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Anyone who reverts Bishzilla should be blocked without warning. It's a rule.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Definitely ANI should be kept sterile. Think of the horror if it were to reproduce. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• I suggest ANI should be put in Bishzilla's pocket. Or moved to User talk:Jimbo Wales, where it can be ignored. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Kinda sad to think editors had actually reverted a humourous post ..... A sign of great things to come perhaps?. –Davey2010^Talk 03:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's beyond sad. It's fucking dreadful. Kinda ballsy too, as technically Bishzilla outranks Jimbo IIRC.Joefromrandb (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Thepoliticsexpert

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

---

I copyedited (1) the terrible Conservative Campaign Headquarters article and was reverted (2) by User:Thepoliticsexpert, with the edit summary "no reason given". I reinstated (3) my edit with the summary "rv. per WP:MOS", which was reverted (4) by Thepoliticsexpert with the edit summary "reverted vandalism. Have submitted block-request for that user" (he has not). User:Davidjones202 then reverted (5) an edit I had made to Bedford Level experiment on 23 November 2017 and posted an inappropriate warning (6) on my talk page with the edit summary "Your edit to Bedford Level experiment page was reverted due t vandalism by the fact you failed to provide references. If this persists, you may..." The so called vandalism for which I failed to provide refs. was to change "a geography reader" to "a reader in geography". Diffs are provided below:

• (1) My first edit
• (2) Thepoliticsexpert's first revert
• (3) My second edit
• (4) Thepoliticsexpert's second revert
• (5) Davidjones202's edit
• (6) Davidjones202's warning

I suspect Davidjones202 is a sock. I have made the same edits to the image captions on the Philip May article, per WP:N and WP:CIRC. 2.25.221.187 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me as if 2.25.221.187 removed a lot of overlinking from Conservative Campaign Headquarters, and so their edit was justified. It would probably be best to file an SPI if you think there's socking going on, but I'm not sure that the admins there would consider what you've got to be sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Beyond My Ken; (speaking to the IP user - 2.25.221.187) your edits certainly were not vandalism. I'll ping Thepoliticsexpert so he can respond here. Thepoliticsexpert, what made you believe the IP's edits to be vandalism? Am I missing something you saw that I'm not? I just want to make sure just in case.

If you believe Davidjones202 is a sock puppet account, what other account(s) do you believe Davidjones202 is a sock puppet of? Accusing an editor of sock puppetry is a serious assertion; you need to provide proof to back up such claims and be clear with who you believe someone is a sock puppet of and why. Don't make such accusations unless you can provide all of these items - and definitely do not make such accusations without proof! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, thank you for following the instructions here and for leaving an ANI notice :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Prevent vandalism of referenced content on Alexandra Borbély article

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

---

• Alexandra Borbély (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please add an edit ban on a user who removes my NEUTRALLY referenced edit. He keeps reverting it to a non-referenced version and leaves insults in the messages ("Stop fucking bullshit") The user is User:Ymblanter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.119.59 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Alexandra Borbély

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

---

Since my 3RRN report was ignoored by everybody but Lugnuts, who is always happy to throw mud at me, may be someone can help me here. I am constantly getting reverted by an IP (seven reverts by now) in the article which I created about an actress of Hungarian ethnicity who is a Slovakian citizen. The IP wants that she is called a Hungarian actress in the article and not prepared for a compromise. They even found sources which say she is Hungarian actress, but this just means she acts in Hungarian films. (WP:MOS says the nationality must go to the lede). They completely ignore my arguments that she is a Slovakian citizen. May I please also remind to the community that in a similar situation, when I tried to change a lede of Mariam Mirzakhani which defined her as "Iranian mathematician" (Mirzakhani did not work a single day in Iran) I was booed at the talk page by a crown who did not even allow me to write in the lede that she worked in the US. We should be consistent and follow policies, right? My apologies for going there, but I somehow feel myself hopeless in front of a blatant POV pusher, I can not protect the article and I can not block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I apparently edit-conflicted with the previous topic, it was not there when I started writing my message.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Nigeria Prizes for Science and Literature

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

---

• Nigeria Prize for Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, the article Nigeria Prizes for Science and Literature used to look like this. It's a combo of two related prizes, The Nigeria Prize for Science and The Nigeria Prize for Literature. User:Ammarpad has chosen to split it into two articles Nigeria Prize for Science and Nigeria Prize for Literature and delete the former article by way of a page move. I asked to discuss and/or use Drafts as I disagree this prize needs two articles for various reasons. However they ignored the discussion and reverted back to the split: revert 1 and revert 2 breaking the WP:BRD cycle. I'm asking for help because the editor is not interested in discussing and it seems like the right course of action would to be to restore the original article, create Drafts of the proposed split (the current split articles are not complete and contain problems) and start a discussion on the talk page before making the split given that it is controversial. -- GreenC 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I never said I did not want discuss, so I don't know where you got that. Also I got this ANI notification while I was drafting response to your comment which is not true. You reverted to your preferred style immediately after you posted at my talkpage before I can even be able to see it, and now without any discussion within minutes you post here saying I didn't follow WP:BRD. Honestly I don't know what you mean –Ammarpad (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I just want to say that when/if this discussion goes to the talkpage for an RFC, I will vote in support on splitting the prizes. If we look at this in a strict mode, there is no award registered as Nigeria Prizes for Science and Literature. Encyclopedically, that could include other scientific and literature prizes in Nigeria. What is written in the official site for the awards is Nigeria Prize for Science and The Nigeria Prize for Literature, It also makes more sense for them to be separate as a scientific writer is different from a literary one. This is not a comment on the processes the led to the ANI though. HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is the science prize will not pass WP:NOTE or WP:AFD. Without a combination it is hard to justify a standalone article. Both prizes are run by the same organization they are not really separate at an organizational level. -- GreenC 20:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not a problem. If it cannot pass AFD, then it is not notable and should be deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense and fails WP:PRESERVE. There can be a place for this award on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 20:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense. It already has a place –Ammarpad (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If it is not notable, it should be merged. But we are not certain if it won't be notable. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@HB: They are both notable individually, they are distinct and have plethora of sources for expansion (I have saved up to 20 news reports and analyses on that and intend to expand them) especially criticism of the years they're not awarded and total restructuring of the Science award which make it even more distinct. I responded to him that way, perhaps he have confidence it will be deleted so he can nominate it for AfD, even me I don't support keeping non notable stuff whatever they are –Ammarpad (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, the prizes are huge. The first time I heard of it was when it was being analyzed on radio some years ago. They definitely deserve standalone articles. They are the first of its kind in Nigeria. I'm happy with the innovation by its creators and sponsors.HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, Nigeria Prize for Literature was never article before, it was redirect to combined page when the prize was not so influential. So I never delete any article as you accused me here. I don't even have access to do that. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@HandsomeBoy: Not only that, they are separate prizes, they are awarded different time, different place, they just share name and sponsor. Moreover, although the cash reward is the same, over time, that for Literature gained more prominence as you can see by simple search. Moreover it is now the richest literary award on whole African continent, imagine to say it cannot have standalone page. See Category: literary awards where minor awards as per as $1000 have their own standalone page. I just don't know what he mean, as it seems, he is not even confident in himself that they can't have separate page, just he want me to use draft first which if he had checked well, he will know that I first drafted it in draft and later move it to redirect page, not any page as he alleged. The draft redirect is still there, this is not something hard to find. He just started this thread barely a hour after notifying me and few minutes after I log in, before I even be able to give him meaningful response–Ammarpad (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That is what I am saying. They are separate. I was just trying to explain that even NLNG uses "and" whenever they want to mention them in a sentence. Not sure if I can remember my parts of speech well, but there is a type of noun used for proper legitimate titles, "Nigeria Prizes for Science and Literature" is not a perfect example of that noun, so we shouldn't forcefully make it an article title.HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

They aren't really separate though the URL says http://www.nlng.com/Our-CSR/Pages/The-Nigeria-Prizes.aspx ("The Nigeria Prizes"). Lots of awards have separate prizes under the same award, where award is the legal body. Both share the same official webpage. -- GreenC 21:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

What a contradiction! So you quoted their website where they confirm they are separate prizes but you want them merged as you preferred! Apart from all the media reports I read never mixed them; see this category Category:Aurealis Awards, where not only they separate awards which are broadly and naturally different (Arts and Science) but every genre has its own standalone page. And the top award is no more prestigious than this–Ammarpad (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

... so, now that discussion has started, wouldn't it be better to continue at the article's talk page? –FlyingAce^✈hello 23:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Flyer22 Reborn

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

---

Hi. This wasn't supposed to be a big deal, but still Flyer22 Reborn acts rudely. When I made an edit on Draft:Star Wars The Last Jedi audience response, my edit was reverted with an edit summary. I saw that I was wrong, so I moved on. A while later, I got a notification from Flyer22 Reborn, who pinged my nick in a message on the draft talk. They were mostly talking about something else, and the prolem was fixed. So, I notified Flyer22 Reborn on their talk message to not ping me. He replied and pinged me again with a message that starts with "...at the risk of subjecting myself to your wrath,...". I was done with them, so I, again, sent a message to not ping me again, which I found very discomforting. He replied and accused me with being some kind of a puppeteer by stating: "...unless, of course, you edited Wikipedia as a different account and I offended you in that way...". I was disturbed so I changed my preferences because of them, and sent a message to let them know and to move on, to mind their business. They replied with an unkind manner, telling me what to do by moving "the hell on". They claimed that I was "harrasing" them. So, I came here to report my "silliness", and I want them to take a necessary warning. Thank you! Sebastian James (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sigh. Sebastian, if you stop replying to Flyer22 on their talk page, they'll stop having any excuse to ping you. Flyer22, stop pinging Sebastian when you know that's going to set him off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait! I just remembered, there's a thing now where you can set it to ignore pings from a particular person. I can't recall how it works, but someone here will remember I'm sure. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Down at the bottom, you can now "mute" individual users. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

While I welcome the information, really, if an editor doesn't want you to ping them, don't ping them. It's not asking THAT much and Flyer comes off as childish here. No comment on James' behavior, I haven't looked that heavily at it. --Tarage (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course, your opinion is soooo unbiased. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If someone asks you to stop pinging them, you stop pinging them. Flyer, please respect other people's wishes. --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Also you HAVE to notify people when you talk about then in ANI. I'll go ahead and do it for you... --Tarage (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sighs. Like I told Sebastian James on my talk page, "WP:Pings are used for communication and collaboration and that includes explaining why you were reverted on this matter. They can save one having to go to an editor's talk page, prevent miscommunication and WP:Edit warring. If you do not want to be pinged, I suggest you disable your WP:Ping option."

There is no valid reason to state that an editor should not ping another when the other has left a post on that editor's talk page, as if the poster is supposed to get the last word and explain their point of view and the other editor is not supposed to do that. Sebastian James fails to realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative community and that editors will be pinging him unless he disables that function. There is nothing at all to support his demand that I do not ping him on my talk page to reply to him. He should not have pestered me with his complaint in the first place. He should have moved on. His demand is akin to stating editors should not post on his talk page when an issue arises, and that type of thing never works out on this site. I note on my talk page that I would rather editors not post on it unless necessary, but I realize that editors will post on it for important issues. I also ask that editors do not ping me when I am already watching an article, but I do not ask that editors never ping me. If I wanted that, I would simply disable the pinging option. I could see not pinging Sebastian James if we had past tempestuous history and/or if there was an issue of me trying to harass him, but that is not case. I pinged him once on a draft talk page about an edit he made. Then he came to my talk page demanding that I don't ping him, and asserted that I alone should never ping him. If editors want to entertain this silliness, be my guest. But I will not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You pinged him in every single reply you made. Clearly he is watching the page if he's posting on your talk page. You don't find that the least bit petty? Grow up. --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I stated on my talk page, you are not an unbiased commentator on this matter. And there is no "clearly he is watching the page if he's posting on [my] talk page." All his replies indicate is that he read my message due to me pinging him. You are blowing this matter up for no solid reason at all. Growing up includes not using a dispute between two editors to continue a grudge against another. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Also I like how you flat out ignored Floquenbeam's statement that you needed to stop. --Tarage (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. I have not pinged him again. And Floquenbeam was quick to note, like I noted, that Sebastian James can turn the ping option off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Probable sock

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

---

User:MTNbw is harassing Montanabw and SlimVirgin. They are probably a sock of User:ItsLassieTime, who has been creating new accounts threatening various editors lately. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That account was already blocked –Ammarpad (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed that. I had only looked at the userpage and the block was on the talk page. Sorry. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Is that ILT, for real? Holy moly. If true, he's been at it for at least 9 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Fegut is NOTHERE

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

---

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

Requesting an indef NOTHERE block for Fegut. All edits thus far are questionable at best. User page is trollish. Noticed user by this edit

Main problem edits, changes in bold:

• Irwin Allen Ginsberg (/ˈɡɪnzbərɡ/; June 3, 1926 – April 5, 1997) was an American Jew and purveyor of filth, and one of the leading...
• The Romani (also spelled Romany; /ˈroʊməni/, /ˈrɒ-/), or Roma, are a parasitic type of vermin. A traditionally...

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef - Zero constructive edits, racist nonsense, block forever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef Classic neo-nazi shit. Block forever and a bloody day. Irondome (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

---

 Done. El_C 07:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Potential COI and disruptive editing

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

---

TheCorageone1 seems to be a WP:SPA which was created to solely edit Defiant Wrestling. He has been an extremely disruptive editor and continues to add information to the article which goes against the stubify result from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling. He was twice been asked on his talk page about potential COI, including once here [231] which provided evidence that they did declare themselves the owner of the logo in question, which would make them affiliated. He has not responded yet continues to edit the page. Despite the AfD on the initial article they started three spin off articles which all resulted in delete at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Championship, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Women's Championship, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Hardcore Championship. Despite the delete closing result, the information was merged and redirected by this user. We now also have 27 redirects to this page [232] and a template filled with redirects Template:Defiant Wrestling Champions.

All of this for a wrestling promotion who barely passes GNG if at all. Of the 41 references currently on the page, 12 of them are YouTube, 5 are WP:PRIMARY, and 9 are from cagematch (which is an RS for stats but not for notability). This user has clearly not done anything to benefit the purpose of the stubify, only to fluff the article. - Galatz^Talk 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that posting this here has gotten the user to stop editing the article as he has not made any edits in the past couple days, however some assistance on the matter would still be appreciated. Thanks - Galatz^Talk 23:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I just want to chime in to back Galatz up. Corageone1 has been the main player here but this article has had a problem with other SPAs in the past. It would be helpful if others could add Defiant Wrestling to their watchlists to look for disruptive activity.LM2000 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the content added since the AFD either isn't referenced by a reliable source or isn't within the ruling of the AFD to keep the article short (which basically removed a bunch of what is being added now). Remove the content you feel isn't appropriate and link to the AFD page and cite policy in your edit summaries. If the user restores the content repeatedly and begins edit warring, and fails to respond to the relevant discussion on the article's talk page, then file a report at WP:AN3. Just don't engage in any edit warring; report violations when they occur, and stick to the article's talk page and continue to engage in the relevant discussion.

TheCorageone1 - You need to participate on the article's talk page and discuss the changes you wish to make to the article - especially if other editors object to it. Failing to participate in the relevant discussion and after others have asked you to, and continuing to add content against consensus is disruptive. Before you add any more content, you need to discuss it and everyone needs to come to an agreement first. This is proper dispute resolution protocol and a policy that needs to be followed.

Other than what I've written above directly to TheCorageone1, I don't see the need to take any action at this time. TheCorageone1 has been warned here (I'll also leave a message on this user talk page) - he must discuss his desired changes on the article's talk page and consensus must be reached first before (any) resulting edits are made to the article. Failure to follow these policies and practices moving forward can be fairly interpreted as disruptive now that the expectations have been made clear. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Interaction ban violation

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

---

This is an interaction ban violation by C. W. Gilmore, as he is linking to my edits on an article I created in that post. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

And you just commented here immediately after he did. I think he did indeed violate the interaction ban, and you are skirting very close to it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I had three edit conflicts, I did not respond to him, I was commenting on what you wrote, and given I created the article in question I think I have reason to comment on the issue raised. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No, responding that you can't participate in a discussion because of an interaction ban is not a violation of the interaction ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

How is linking to my edits not a violation? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

In fact the IBAN Policy says, "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly" I'm pretty sure linking to me edits on an article are covered by that Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

He was simply stating that he couldn't participate further in making contributions to an article because of the interaction ban - that's not a violation of an interaction ban to say this (in fact, it's good that he disclosed that so that others understood). He wasn't violating the interaction ban by attempting to actively interact with you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

How is linking to my edits like this not an violation? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Linking to your contributions can be a violation of an interaction ban, sure - but it depends on the situation and the context. In this situation, I wouldn't flag this as "encroachment over the line of scrimmage here" - he was just saying, "hey, I have an interaction ban and he's made edits here, so I need to back off". That's perfectly reasonable to do - he's trying to honor the sanction. Give the guy a little credit here :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reverted my edit and my Talking Page mistake [233]. My intention was to tell the other editor the reason I could not bring up the issues about the Antisemitism in the Labour Party as I wanted to stay away. Slatersteven had previously urged me to do more editing closer to the edge of the IBAN and I had declined, it was my attempt to state again, why I could not get too near things or participate more actively. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't agree that this is a violation. In fact, I remember previously saying something to that effect. Reyk _YO! 15:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Darkness Shines, drop this report now and walk away, or you'll be blocked for violating the IBAN. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• You really don't get how IBANS work do you Sarek, reporting violations are an exemption, or do you need to block me and then have to unblock me again like the last time? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I hate to be the "bad guy", but I agree with SarekOfVulcan here. The discussion and over-reaction to a simple statement is going way beyond and into IBAN territory on your end than with what C. W. Gilmore intended to do in the first place. Let's just step back, understand that it's okay and that he didn't step over the line, and lets just move on peacefully and take this as a learning experience - okay? There's no need to be frustrated or upset :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have precisely zero expertise or authority here, but I feel compelled to speak up. As a wise man once said, de minimis non curat Wikipedia. I have watched this little imbroglio from afar, and I have certainly seen times when I thought Mr. Gilmore was in the wrong. This is not one of them. Happy Friday all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked 2 weeks per bad-faith IBAN report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Good block- Sadly, I think this was correct. It's a pity DS couldn't manage to drop it. Reyk _YO! 15:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

---

As multiple users (including the first-person singular) have opined the block is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED, this should be reopened, or a new thread should be started. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! Thus, you are clearly involved, demonstrated by the text you highlighted. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

...right. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your previous involvement is not "minor", and it most certainly "speaks to bias", as you've previously blocked this user inappropriately for the same "infraction". It baffles me that you would highlight that text, as it speaks to the very essence of WP:INVOLVED. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Minor" is irrelevant. "Purely in an administrative role" is the governing clause there. It wasn't the "same" infraction, and it hardly "speaks to bias", since I've blocked both of them for poking at the other. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Minor is irrelevant"? Are you fucking kidding me? It's part of the text that you highlighted as evidence of your innocence. "Minor is irrelevant". Yeah, he really did say that. Wow. Just wow. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Considering it's on the wrong side of an "or", yes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, shit, you got me there! "It's on the wrong side of an or"! Joefromrandb (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A second administrator has agreed with the block though. I for one also agree with it. --Tarage (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a hundred administrators agree with it. WP:INVOLVED is quite clear. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a bad block. Period. It prevents nothing and is further questionable given that Sarek is involved, despite his poor attempts at convincing us otherwise. It's also not his first poor block on this user. Nihlus 21:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

An admin should've instantly closed the thread as no violation and then went to DS's talkpage to state why it wasn't a violation ..... instead he was allowed to question it here and unfortunately came across as not being able to drop the stick (a stick he may not of had to begin with), The block was piss poor .... A 2 day block sure he can live with that anyone can but a 2 week block all for questioning why it wasn't a violation is heavy handed to say the least. –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

When a user nibbles at the edge of their IBAN, it's bad faith, and they have no one to blame but themselves when they get blocked for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

His first block for violating the IBAN was a week. I blocked him for disruptive editing for 1 week in December. After that, I blocked him for an IBAN vio for 2 weeks, but was overturned after ANI discussion. This one was the same length. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Except that this one is going to wind up being overturned too. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Struck my original mischaracterization of that block. My apologies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it that way I just saw it as him trying to get answers but then again without sounding disrespectful I don't really know him like others here. –Davey2010^Talk 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've started a site ban proposal. Appears to be a net negative, looking at his block log, with long term disruption coming from him. !dave 22:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC) revised 22:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It might be best to hold off on that until his block has expired, and see if he does better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Undone. !dave 22:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Bad block - should have just closed the report. Regardless of what Sarek says above he is involved. His previous block of DS was overturned, which he disagreed with, and appears to be out to get DS now. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It appears that DS is actively looking for violations, which is just begging for trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Right, which means he hasn't done anything wrong yet. Therefore, this block is ridiculous and the fact that Sarek is wasting the community's time is further problematic. Nihlus 22:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Nihlus, please actually read the thread before posting in it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
        • You're in no position to be telling others what to do or to be assuming anything about what they have done up until now. I advise you stop digging. Nihlus 22:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Seriously! There's clearly no consensus for this block, and in all likelihood, consensus is against it. Why force someone to overturn it? Just unblock him already. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Agree. Admins are supposed to help prevent disruption, not actively cause it. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is very quickly turning into a clusterfuck, if it hasn't already. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You think? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• (ec)Gilmore is saying "I can't talk about it because I'm under an IBAN". Darkness Shines is claiming "I can't talk about it" constitutes talking about it, is trying to get Gilmore blocked for saying that, and won't take no for an answer. Gaming an IBAN to attack your opponent seems a worse violation of it than merely mentioning that it exists. I think an uninvolved admin would have closed this the same way. Reyk _YO! 23:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. The fact is that an uninvolved administrator didn't close it. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That argument amounts to wikilawyering. DS appears to be nibbling at the edge of the IBAN. That's a bad-faith activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Gilmore acted in good faith and DS reported him to ANI for it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Lepricavark (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I wish an uninvolved admin had closed it. As it stands Sarek gleefully reapplied another bad block that the community overturned a few weeks ago. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• I have always been a strong proponent of the "talk before block" approach -- and that was followed successfully here. Three seperate editors explained to DS the reality of the situation; DS refused to accept it. Regardless of whether Sarek was involved or not, the end result would have been the same.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily, and even if it's true, there's still the issue of a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:INVOLVED going unsanctioned. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

While I generally disagree that this was an involved block, I have to recommend Sarek lay off the constant replies to DS. It is not improving the situation in the slightest. --Tarage (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure "constant replies" is a fair characterization. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This could all have been avoided if DS had communicated with his most trusted admin via email instead of bringing it up out in the open. And also if DS weren't actively looking for violations. What he should be doing is pretending the other guy does not exist. If one is in an IBAN, it must be fully embraced or it won't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like he doesn't have a trusted admin, based on his talk page. --Tarage (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If not, then he's painted himself into a corner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It also could have been avoided if SarekOfVulacn had observed WP:INVOLVED, which he instead chose to ignore. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Joe I hate to say it, but this drum you are beating isn't helping. Several admins have commented on this, and nearly all of them are in agreement. I very much doubt you are going to her this ban overturned. Lessened maybe, but that's about it. I don't think bludgeoning things as you are is going to help. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not "bludgeoning" anything. If Sarek owned up to his infraction and fixed his mistake, and then I continued to berate him, that would be bludgeoning. For now, at least, he's refusing to accept responsibility for his actions. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

2 admins have commented, and one was involved. Also you’ll rarely see an admin side with a mere editor in a dispute with another admin - especially not an editor with a block log. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you two are bludgeoning, and it's becoming obnoxious. We get it. You think he was involved. You've said as much about 10 times now. You clearly are not going to get the apology you want, so why not step back and let other people look into it? Replying to every damn statement he makes with "Y U NO ADMIT WRONG" is not helpful. --Tarage (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't get the first thing. I don't give a good rat's ass about an "apology", and I don't "think" he was involved; I showed, citing policy, that he was involved. Now you're bludgeoning me, so knock it off. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't understand what that word means do you. You are not helping your case, I hope you know that. --Tarage (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• "you've previously blocked this user inappropriately for the same "infraction"" - this does not mean additional blocks for the same infraction are WP:INVOLVED violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • LOL. Sure it doesn't. Sure. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, the policy is very specific that that is what it means. I'm sorry you don't understand that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
      • This isn't rocket science. Once you've blocked a user inappropriately, you don't block the user again, especially not for the same offense for which you originally applied an inappropriate block. You can lawyer until you're blue in the face; this was a revenge block, plain and simple. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Question: Has anything changed since I NAC re-closed this thread as "more heat than light" and someone (I haven't look at the history) re-opened it? I don't think anything has changed at all. Basically the same things are being repeated: the same people are saying the same stuff and being responded to by the same people who responded before. It seems extremely unlikely that Sarek is going to undo his block as a result of this discussion, or that Joefromrandb is going to change his opinion that Sarek was INVOLVED. Darkness Shines has filed an unblock request, so an uninvolved admin can weigh in on it. If anyone really, really feels the need to keep expounding on this, there's a thread on User talk:Darkness Shines.
  I would recommend that someone, preferably an admin, re-close this before someone says something that will get them blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Second. The fact that no other admin has reversed the block is telling of what the outcome will probably be. --Tarage (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I tried closing the thread, but Joefromrandb had other ideas. Lepricavark (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm considering reversing the block, so that's not a good reason to shut down the thread. I suppose a case could be made that a good reason to shut it down is that everyone is saying the same things over and over again, just louder and more insistently. What would be fantastic is if instead of closing it early, everyone chilled a little. But there is an unresolved issue here. How about this: those of you who think Sarek is "involved", consider me to have taken over the first 12 hours of this block (those who think he isn't involved can ignore). So for 12 hours, there isn't going to be any unblock for INVOLVED reasons. Now, anyone have any thoughts that haven't been repeated 3 or more times already above? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes: thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Given that DS still does not understand why he was blocked, is not ready to be unblocked. I don't think he needs to be blocked for the full two weeks, but it would be helpful if he showed some understanding of why he was blocked in the first place. Lepricavark (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, Floq, in that case please file this for later use somewhere--I typed really hard at it. "Sorry Joe, but there is clearly no agreement that this is somehow an involved block; the one diff DS lists does not make involvement with all-caps--and the "pound of flesh" is way too vindictive: sorry, but that's a low blow, and I don't see any evidence of it. DS, there may be reasons to disagree with the block, and arguments/statements to make in an unblock request, but that Sarek is involved and thus should stay out of it is not a good one. I'm closing this: if anyone wants to bring Sarek up at ArbCom they are welcomee to, and DS doesn't need this for an unblock request." I was closing this... Drmies (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is inherently impossible for editors who think they were unjustly blocked to show some understanding of why they were blocked. An admin should have shut down the original report with a simple “closing as no violation.” If Darkness Shines continued to persist after that then a block may have been an option. It is not beneficial to the project to be blocking editors as a first step. Sarek’s participation fanned the flames due to DS’s perception that he had been unfairly treated by Sarek before. Let’s please use common sense and compassion before blocks. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That's actually a very good point. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • BTW, I don't think I would have blocked for two weeks, and I might not have blocked at all, but these are always judgment calls. The snark was certainly counterproductive, and telling the blocking admin they don't know policy (and I agree with Sarek that C.W. Gilmore's comment was not an IBAN violation) and continuing to yell at him is also not helpful. I do not agree that the block was punitive, or that Sarek was involved. For the record, I am well aware of the history between DS and C.W. Gilmore, and I suppose I've yelled at both of them.

    Mr Ernie, we can hardly take into account every time we block how the person we block might feel about that. And the block wasn't for not showing understanding why they were blocked--it was for not understanding, or refusing to understand, that their invalid report of an iBan violation had kind of turned into a violation of the iBan. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

    • YES! Exactly. Thank you, Drmies, that's the phrasing that was escaping me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
      • The point Mr. Ernie was making is that you could have shut it down then & there. Instead, you fed him rope, lay in wait, & then pounced. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would say: Unblock DS. Tell C.W. Gilmore not to link to DS, mention him ect. Tell DS dont come here BEFORE talking to a trusted admin. Everybody else shut the hell up and get back to work and CLOSE this thread now....buts thats just me, your mileage might vary. --Malerooster (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What Malerooster said, re closing this thread. The next meaningful admin action in this saga is determining the current unblock appeal on Darkness Shines' talkpage. Theres no benefit in holding this conversation here and there simultaneously, and "there" seems a more logical venue at this stage. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential trouble?

The user DS is saying that after the block's finished, he's going to create a new account. Nothing wrong with that, except he may be under the false impression that his new account won't be subject to the IBAN. In any ban situation, it's the guy behind the user ID, not just the ID itself, which is banned. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sanctions apply to the user and not the IP or account. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct, and he is also not eligible to change accounts under the clean start policy due to having that active IBAN sanction in effect. He'll need to connect or disclose on any new account he creates that he is this user. If he creates and begins using an account and fails to do this, it can (and likely will) be been seen as attempting to evade scrutiny or active sanctions and as a violation of Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Just keep kicking the guy! Great work! Joefromrandb (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

He needs to know that just creating a new account is not going to fix anything, and could lead to a permanent block if violates the IBAN. Of course, if he creates a new account and totally adheres to the IBAN, then all will be swell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Is no one able to tell when someone is venting and blowing steam? Why are we having these asides about a snide remark made in an edit summary by someone who has been given the short end of the stick up until now? Baseball Bugs You've done nothing but made this worse. Nihlus 02:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If all it is is venting, then all will be swell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

"Extreme docufiction"

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

---

A few days ago, I removed sections on "hybrid pictures" and "extreme docufiction" from the article on docufiction, on the grounds that the content was poorly written (sample text: "On the other hand, persons playing their own roles in real life and in real time is another that gave basement to it.") and difficult to parse exactly what it was trying to say — and, in fact, it appears to be edging into an original research essay, as its content isn't actually supported by its sources. For example, the sentence "The stories these adventurers tell about such encounters are cryptic and highlight an uncomfortable paradox that haunts them all in different ways" was sourced to this very basic "filmmaking 101" definition of the difference between script-based feature film and documentary film which says nothing about adventurers being cryptic or paradoxical or haunted, or anything else whatsoever about the concept of films that blend documentary with fictional elements. None of the other sources were any better at actually reflecting the statements being sourced to them either, so I simply removed the section.

But a few days later, the section's original author Tertulius challenged me on the article's talk page, making the questionable claim that his addition was itself responsible for a manifold increase in the page's popularity and demanding that I reconsider my decision and "find a reasonable solution" (by which presumably he meant "leave me alone to do whatever the hell I want", because there's no "reasonable solution" other than deletion, to a poorly written section that isn't actually supported by its references), before readding it to the article himself. He added one new source this time that wasn't present in their prior version, but it still doesn't actually support any of the content either — nowhere in that entire document (an academic thesis) does its author define any such thing as "extreme docufiction" whatsoever. And if I try to Google the phrase "extreme docufiction" to look for other sources, it literally exists nowhere but Wikipedia and its mirrors. Simply put, it's either an outright hoax or Tertulius' own new original research theory that he's trying to use Wikipedia to advance — it is simply not a recognized thing that real-world sources discuss at all.

This has happened on at least two prior occasions, further: a few weeks after Tertulius first added it in 2015, an anonymous IP removed it on the grounds that it was incoherent and horribly worded, following which Tertulius readded it again in early 2016, and then just a few months ago Beland removed it on the grounds that it has an inappropriate tone, following which Tertulius again readded it himself. There seem to be some real ownership issues here, in that Tertulius seems to be unwilling to discuss anybody's concerns about the content's suitability for Wikipedia — on two of the three occasions that it's been removed, he simply restored it without any discussion at all, and on the third he just asserted without any real evidence that the content was "popular" and then readded it again. But if he restores it again, I'm not going to be able to revert him without tripping the WP:3RR wire, so I wanted to ask for some outside assistance. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Bearcat - I agree that the sentences you quoted at the beginning of your discussion statement are grammatically poor and need clarity or improvement to reflect their intended assertions. Someone who refutes your removal of poorly worded content because they're not fond of it isn't valid - sure, they attempted to add sources, but if they don't reflect the content in the article, then it's useless... I'm reading into this more and will update afterwards. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Tertulius has readded the content again, this time as "hybridity in docufiction" — but it's still written like a semi-coherent aesthetics essay ("There, one may feel just a little confuse (and that may be amusing) or, in the worst case, desperate (and that may be tragic) [54], there or anywhere else [55] [56] [57]") rather than encyclopedic content. And while there are sources present in the new version that could potentially be salvaged for other purposes in the article, they still don't support the content the're being cited for: 54, for example, says nothing about how tragic desperation is, and none of 54-57 support anything about the thereness or anywhere-elseness of anything. This is getting pretty tiresome, needless to say. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Bearcat - Your frustration is completely understandable; hopefully my neutral and administrative involvement will at least help drive the discussion to come to a close. I've left an edit warring notice on Tertulius' user talk page. Not taking any of the content that's in dispute into account, edits and reverts are being made onto the article and without the dispute being resolved on it's talk page first. I'm hoping that this will stop this and drive focus to the discussion. Whether your changes or his changes are right or wrong can be determined there; my first priority (of course) is to stop the continued reverting first, then see if I can't try and help the discussion come to a resolution :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Maximiliano Korstanje

• Maximiliano Korstanje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 190.104.232.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (METROTEL.COM.AR)
• 181.92.112.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• Dyck99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Noellesch9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.226.154.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• Vanrobert99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 181.105.12.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• 181.92.114.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• 186.125.41.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• 181.90.148.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR

etc.

Maximiliano Korstanje is an Argentine sociologist. A small number of IPs and accounts have extensively edited his article, adding much resume inflation which has since been rolled back, and also editing numerous other articles to add his viws primary sourced from his own publications, again rolled back.

Today I blocked 190.104.232.132, after the IP reinserted another mention of Korstanje primary-sourced to his published work. I blocked for:

• Promotional editing, adding WP:REFSPAM to Maximiliano Korstanje (IP address geolocates to subject's location and edits suggest a close connection).
• Disruptive editing, adding all-capitalised meta-commentary to mainspace which also strongly suggest that this IP is, or is closely associated with, Korstanje.
• The entire editing history of this IP is indicative of strong POV aggressively pushed (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nova_Science_Publishers&diff=prev&oldid=740686385).

I think it may be time for a formal ban on the person behind these IPs and accounts. Style and meta-commentary makes it unlikely it's more than one person. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: just also blocked 181.90.148.76 for the same crap. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support formal ban on the person. I've also had experience of these IPs/accounts and assumed good faith of the account User:Noellesch9 till my eyes bled; then I indeffed. I agree it's probably all one person — as you say, a person that is... yes, closely associated with Korstanje. This comment from Noellesch9, their last, is interesting; it suggests the promoter has moved to the English Wikipedia because they couldn't get any traction in Spanish wiki (because all the editors who opposed their editing there were it seems "abusive" and "never intellectuals"). A formal ban on the person behind this would be morally satisfying, and I support it. Practically speaking, we'll also most likely have to semi the article Maximiliano Korstanje forever and a day. And how about a filter for keeping out Korstanje-related spam from other articles? (Said she hazily. I don't understand filters very well.) Bishonen | talk 21:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC).

72.185.108.110

• 72.185.108.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Going through their contribution history, they seem to be adding unnecessary cruft[234][235], removing content[236][237], and generally being a nuisance.[238][239][240]. Their intention to disrupt couldn't be more clear. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 00:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Those last three items, deleting from one's own talk page, are within the IP's rights. In fact, restoring them was not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs Yes, but it gives off an WP:IDHT mentality on the editors part. Especially considering how they keep doing what is getting them warned. It also may be to circumvent a block being given multiple level one warnings, rather in the typical fashion (1, 2, 3, 4im). Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP's other edits look questionable. But I recommend you strike the complaint about him deleting stuff from his own talk page. That's permissible; it's not "being a nuisance". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It can be considered a nuisance, taken into account how they are abusing the privledge to remove warnings from their talk page. I stand by what I said. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP is free to remove warnings from its talk page, and reposting them is disruptive behavior. Concentrate on the questionable content, not on what they are permitted to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who adds a warning to a talk page should probably check the history of the page before adding it anyway. It's better than saying "You can't remove X from your talk page." --Tarage (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortuately, a majority of vandal-fighters do not do so. That, or they are using an semi-automated program that leaves a warning corresponding to the last warning on their talk page. If a warning is removed, it defaults to level one. Even ClueBot NG has this issue. Besides, I never said they cannot remove warnings from their talk page, I was pointing out how they were being generally disruptive and abusing the priviledge to do so. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a right, not a privilege. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I still stand by what I said. I used their removal of talk page warnings as an example of probable suspicion that they have a intent to disrupt. Especially given the persistent removing the warnings in such a short time span. Getting back to the point of the reason I filed this. Their edits seem to be, for the most part, questionable to outright disruption. As I said originally, it's clear that building to the encyclopedia is not their intention. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 03:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Repeated Addition of Unsourced Material to List of Bible verses not included in modern translations.

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

---

• List of Bible verses not included in modern translations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sussmanbern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Our issue here is the repeated insertion of unsourced claims by Sussmanbern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:V, which states, among other things, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Sussberman continues to ignore WP:V despite various reminders over a period now a month long of weeks.

A Timeline

At 12:51 17 December 2017, User:Sussmanbern was told by User:Dimadick about the importance of making sure that all new additions to the article have proper inline citations, in order to avoid having the material deleted. (There had been earlier conflicts, among other parties, over the addition of unsourced material to this article, which can easily be seen at the talk page). Here is the diff of Dimadick's statement: [241].

Sussberman asked for a summary of the earlier conflicts, "so tI know what to avoid doing." [242]

Reiterating Dimadick's point, I told Sussmanberg that the thing to avoid doing was the addition of unsourced material to the page: [243] (31 December).

Sussmanberg assured me that they "can appreciate the problem of additions without source citations." [244].

At 04:18, 7 January 2018, I took a look at the article and found it to be filled with uncited claims. I removed a number of them: [245]

At 19:50, 7 January 2018, Sussberman left a notice at my talk page announcing his ownership of the Wikipedia page, and that I am not allowed to interfere with anything he writes, "until Feb 14, 2018 . . . PLEASE DO NOT TAMPER WITH MY WRITING WHILE I AM WRITING."

At 19:54, Sussberman complained that their Second Amendment rights were being violated at the talk page: [246].

At 20:22, Sussberman posted a statement of WP:OWNERSHIP directly in the article text itself: [247].

At 20:28, I replied at my talk page, notifying Sussberman about the contents of policy pages WP:OWN and WP:V. [248]

Sussberman ignored my reply.

At 20:35, Sussberman added more unsourced material to the page: [249].

At 1:01, 8 January 2018, Sussberman added more unsourced material to the page: [250].

At 1:22, Sussberman reverted my previous edit, restoring a great deal of unsourced content despite the previous repeated reminders about this: [251].

At 1:36, I wrote a second reminder, this time on the talk page: [252].

In the interests of avoiding an editing war, I asked Sussberman whether they were now willing to abide by WP:V, or whether I should seek dispute resolution. I have received no reply, and Sussberman continues editing away.

I request that administrators take some kind of action — it doesn't matter to me exactly what — to ensure that the addition of unsourced material to this article does not continue. I do not want to edit-war here, so I can't just keep removing the stuff myself. Alephb (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Having received Alephb's comments, I am in the midst of adding citations to the text that he deleted. I am trying to find and transfer citations and links as fast as I can. Sussmanbern (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Even within the last few hours, even as I was adding citations, Alephb was still erasing my stuff - I found I was collecting citations for text that no longer existed, and he took particular pains to repeatedly delete a quotation WITH citation that I went to some effort to find. I am ready to dump this whole project. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, I would be happy to copy the entire deleted text to the talk page or any piece of your userspace that you specify, so that you can add citations to it and then re-add it to the article. If I deleted anything that was properly cited, that was certainly a mistake, and if you just show me the quote, I would be more than happy to add it back in myself, if you like. Alephb (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It is worth noting, at this point, that the continued addition of uncited material by Sussmanbern has continued even after the beginning of this ANI thread: [253]. The added material there speaks to the motives of the translators of various post-1880 Bible translators and editors. He added that to a previously correctly-cited quote from a writer in 1832. The quote is cited -- the additional material about what people were thinking several decades later is not. WP:V is still not being followed. In the interest of not edit-warring, I'm simply going the leave the uncited material there, but I would urge Sussmanbern to delete his claims about the motives of these translators until he can find a reliable source backing up the claims. And I would ask Sussmanbern to substantiate his claim that I removed a properly cited claim, or to strike out the accusation. One of or the other. Alephb (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's another edit by Sussberman, still as this ANI goes on: [254]. It purports to give the "Reason" that modern Bible translations omit a particular verse, but does not cite any source that confirms that the "reason" given is in fact the reason the modern translators have omitted this verse. This is also a violation of WP:V. I'm surprised to see this behavior going on MID-ANI. Alephb (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And . . . here's a third WP:V violation, also made while this ANI goes on: [255]. The unsourced part is, "Both verses 44 and 46 are duplicates of verse 48, which remains in the text. Verses 44 and 46 are both lacking in א,B,C,L,ƒ<super>1</super>, and some mss of the ancient versions, but appear in somewhat later sources." What somewhat later sources? Why no citation? How difficult is this? Alephb (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And now we have a fourth WP:V violation: [256]. It makes an uncited claim about what motivates modern translators, about what is written in the original handwriting of a particular manuscript, uncited claims about which manuscripts are more, or less, ancient, and an uncited claim that uncited editors "seem confident." Alephb (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a fifth: [257]. It alleges that several books have been written on a particular passage, without citing any books written on that passage. Alephb (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's number six: [258]. It alleges things about "most modern versions" and their treatment of two passages, without a supporting citation. It also says the passages are supported by a "wide variety" or uncited sources, and the uncited claim that "there are strong reasons to doubt that the words were part of the original text of the Gospels." Alephb (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's number seven: [259]. It alleges that "some Italic mss" include a particular verse. No source is cited. Alephb (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Reasons" that Alephb says are unsourced cite mss listed in the critical editions of the Greek NT mentioned by name in my Intro to the article (Souter, Nestle-Aland, etc.), having mentioned them anyone can find the relevant verses. As for not specifying "some Italic mss" and the like, these are (1) recondite and (2) the usual citation forms involve a complicated typography, often with layers of superscripts; as this article is intended for beginners in this topic (non-beginners would not need this article) it was not my goal to baffle the reader. Again the specific mss can be found in the critical editions I named. I had said in my Intro that I would cite only "four or five" of the leading mss evidence for inclusion or exclusion, and those motivated to dig deeper can look it up in the named critical editions. Listing all the mss evidence, including versions and patristic sources, as appears in those editions, would make this article very bulky, require some difficult typographic tricks, and make the article less reader-friendly. I would like to emphasize that this article lay fallow - useless and unrevised - for more than five years until I saw it a couple of weeks ago. Even Alephb had not attempted to improve it in those five years. But once I started, he could not contain himself for as little as five days. I am ready to let him roll this boulder up the mountain, while I play the critic. And could someone please ask him to stop misspelling my name. Sussmanbern (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to resolve your content disputes, that should happen on the article talk page, or in Dispute Resolution. Here, only behavioral issues are considered, and Alephb has presented fairly compelling evidence of your ownership behavior. I have left a comment on your talk page to explain in further detail why that is a problem, and why not editing collaboratively can lead to being blocked from editing. Please read that and the links it includes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No one is asking you to list every italic manuscript. It's just that, when you restore text that has been removed for not being sourced, we need an inline citation confirming that "some manuscripts" say the one thing or another. Just name whatever source you're copying the claims out of in a footnote. And likewise, when you make claims about the motives of particular people (some still living) you should find reliable sources for those claims as well. That would work fine. I can quote the wording about inline citations in WP:V again if that would help.

The accusation that I made no efforts to improve the article prior to you showing up is false.

Speaking of accusations, I am still waiting for you to show us the diffs of the properly cited quote that you say I "repeatedly" removed. Either that, or I would ask you to strike out the accusation. One or the other. Alephb (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sussmanbern: Have you considered drafting your changes in your sandbox or userspace? I hope that you are planning to add sources to the content as you said (I am in the midst of adding citations to the text that he deleted. I am trying to find and transfer citations and links as fast as I can.) - taking you at your word, drafting in userspace first would resolve this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I give up. This article was seriously neglected and I was a volunteer trying to improve it, but ingratitude wins out. I leave it to Alephb to finish the article to his satisfaction. Sussmanbern (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are serious about letting this one go, I think that resolves our problem. Given Sussmanbern's statement that they are no longer interested in working on the article, I would assume that it would not be considered edit-warring if I waited a day or two and then stripped all non-verifiable content out of the article. Given that the "other side" has thrown in the towel, and there's now no one left to edit-war with. Alephb (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User has been indefinately blocked for threat of violence. I recommend we close this discussion. Alephb (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually he wasn't complaining about his 2nd Amendment rights being violated in that diff. I've blocked indef for a clear threat of violence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Good eye. How'd we all miss that one? --Tarage (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't consider that a legitimate threat of violence, and a indefinite block seems harsh, and unwarranted. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no way in hell I'm letting "I'm gonna shoot you for reverting me" stand, whether it's "legitimate" or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, had he said: "I'm going to shoot you for reverting me", then it would have been a good block. Nice straw man. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, if you wouldn't summarize that diff the way I just did, then how would you summarize it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have summarized it at all. I would have asked him what the hell he meant. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No matter how much you WP:WIKILAWYER about it, there is only one possible interpretation of "this is why the Second Amendment exists" in that context. We don't give people a "get out of making a naked threat of violence free" card just because they don't use specific words to do it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The only one Wiki-lawyering is you, which I understand, as AN/I is filled with admins defending the indefensible, lest their own infallibility one day be called into question. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that casting of aspersions, I don't believe this conversation can go anywhere productive, so I'm out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Given how obviously confused this user is about so much else, did it occur that he could have the 1st and 2nd Amendments confused, lamenting interference with his perceived right to free speech here? I ask this having more than once heard an (obviously confused) individual state: "the 1st Amendment grants us the right to bear arms". It just seems incredibly unlikely that this user would make such a giant leap from frustration to threats of murder so quickly. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This edit on my talk page, where the editor says that they are "very angry", and claims that Alephb deliberately sabotaged their work, would seem to be pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention revoking talk-page access immediately, allowing the user no chance to even explain what was meant. I guess that was a prophylactic measure; less chance the user can complain about it if you shut them up preemptively. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And yet, the user appealed the block and is currently able to edit. Funny how that works.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's anything but funny. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb - Haven't you learned anything yet? Well, you didn't learn anything four years ago, and maybe you didn't learn anything two months ago. You appear to have jumped into this controversy that you were not originally involved in, just to dump on an admin or something. Four years ago you were asked to try to be less provocative. Two months ago OR and NYB made a last plea with you to try to change your behavior when Tomstar81 had requested arbitration. I requested that ArbCom take the case, not merely to deal with you, but also to define a procedure for dealing with editors who poke you, like poking a bear, and then try to blame you. However, in this case, you just came running into this conflict like a bear on a tear. This conflict didn't involve you, and you should have left alone, and, if you can't learn to leave things alone sometimes, you will wind up in a bearcage, known as an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got one hell of a nerve. Please take your passive-aggressive pot-stirring elsewhere. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: I think you need to be less trigger happy. There's no way that statement deserved an indefinite block. Paul August ☎ 21:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have seriously contemplated an indef if I had seen it. That kind of implication is totally unacceptable here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It was a blatant threat of violence and was dealt with appropriately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Is there anything you feel you can say about why this block was lifted? I ask because it does not seem obvious to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

He was unblocked by User:Yunshui, who could perhaps shed some light on this, as I too am quite curious. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy to do so. The UTRS appeal made it clear that this was basically intended as a very poor-taste attempt at humour, not a deliberate threat of violence. The editor has said that they will not repeat it, and has also stated that they will step away from the List of Bible verses... article, which also assuaged my concerns about future edit warring. I checked with Sarek via email, and on getting his agreement, lifted the block, as it was no longer serving a purpose (the behaviour which cause the block is not going to be repeated). Yunshui ^雲_水 08:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yunshi: Thanks for that explanation. I hope that the editor's promises hold up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that threats of violence results in being blocked for a shorter time-period than someone who violated 3RR once, I would like to take this opportunity to request an indefinite IBAN. I have been threatened not only with violence, but with more mundane retaliation as well: [260], and user who made the threats has not, as far as I can tell, offered any assurances that they will not carry them out. I think under these circumstances, an IBAN is warranted. And I'm not saying that because I want the user punished. I do not give the slightest shit whether the ban is one-way or two-way. If the user will not give me some assurance that I won't be retaliated against, I request that the community does so. Alephb (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the comments above, I'm going to take the assertion that there are no outstanding threats now at face value. Alephb (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

At least for myself and as of right now, I consider the personal threats issue resolved. What is not resolved is the continued personal attacks: i.e., [261], which was written just a few hours ago. But progress comes in steps. Alephb (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alephb: I don't think that S's final remark comes close to being a personal attack. It was snide, and completely unnecessary -- I've suggested to him that he strike it for those reasons -- but not a violation of WP:NPA. I think it would behoove S. to mind his P's and Q's considering that he just had an indef block lifted, but that's a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you are uninvolved, there's a good chance you have a more reasonable opinion on this than myself. Fair enough. Alephb (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits

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

---

User:KingRomero14 appears to be an account purely for non-constructive edits. They were blocked last month for it, yet continue to edit in the same manner. For example, this edit here [262] is them just randomly adding an event that has even been mentioned will not occur this year by a WP:RS. Looking at their edit history I see almost nothing that they have posted that wasn't immediately reverted. - Galatz^Talk 14:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked a week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

BLP concerns on school article talk page

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

---

See content at Talk:Hamilton High School (Chandler, Arizona)#Coming Down The Pipeline by AZOperator (talk · contribs) ... specifically the statements "is a controversial attorney"; "are looking for headlines", and "is looking for anyway out of spending his adult life in jail" (I have intentionally avoided copying individual names to this page, but they are listed on that talk page).

I considered reverting and revdel the post myself; but would like to request additional review due to the user's failure to recognize their own repeated policy violations that resulted in the prior block I had given them (see here and here, as well as the prior ANI discussion). The user has also had comparable issues at WikiNews project. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed that section, but didn't revdel. I don't have any good sense of what further action is required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure any additional action (besides eyes on the article and talk page) are needed at this time. But, given how the user is attempting to portray actions of John from Idegon as a personal issue,[263] I thought it best to have a different admin than myself review/resolve the current concern was the best way to avoid any further mistaken impressions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

And so it begins, John complains about me and like blinders no one has the ethical capacity to look at every angle. The whole, he did first and that negates my actions somehow justifies it - is very interesting. AZOperator (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Also if you actually look at the Wikinews discussion, they said my "sandboxed" content was clearly news which should be followed, but they lacked the editorial tools to go through the massive amount of information for verification. There was no reprimand, that was a incompatibility issue and was dealt with no penalties - no hard feelings on any side. AZOperator (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

AZOperator The 'Coming down the pipeline' comment has been correctly removed by admin SarekOfVulcan as a BLP violation, and it would indeed probably be best revdel'd. Wikinews has got nothing to do with Wikipedia, it's a totally different WMF project and citing it is simply a red herring and wasting our time. Those of us who have worked regularly for years to maintian the WP:WPSC project have always maintained that Wikipedia school articles shoud be neutral, devoid of of both propmotional and negative WP:UNDUE content and should strictly only mention the names of people who are deemed notable by Wikipedia standards (WP:BLP, WP:LISTPEOPLE etc.). Just because things can be sourced does not mean thjey have to be included: WP:COAT.

There has been a recent spate of editors with a single agenda to add 'controversy' sections to school articles. It needs to be made clear that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a Good (or bad) Schools Guide. That said, all this is a content issue and as Barek sugests, ANI might not be the best venue or it. I have every confidence that John from Idegon does a correct job of looking after the school Schools project as one of its trusted coordinators, and that if he often returns to the same articles, as I do, it's part of the work there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

In all fairness to AZOperator, I'm the one who first mentioned WikiNews, and they responded to that. As you point out, it's a separate project - and while I have a different interpretation of events there, I should have just left that comment off my initial post. I apologize for the tangent, and am willing to strike it if that simplifies the main point of this thread (ie: the BLP concerns on the post that has now been removed from the article talk page). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

With that BLP concern now removed; what remains now returns to being a content dispute - so I support just closing this thread so discussion can return to there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamilton_High_School_(Chandler,_Arizona)&diff=820061546&oldid=820056915

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

WP:SPA evading block via an IP

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

---

I reported Aaroncmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at WP:EWN for repeatedly adding content about a non-noteworthy cover at Toxic (song), which seems to be the account's only purpose. They were blocked 24 hours by NeilN but are now using an IP, 192.154.116.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to evade the block [264]. Therefore, I'm requesting a temporary block for the IP and a longer or indefinite block on the account, as they won't take no for an answer. Home Lander (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Need an admin to oversee an AfD case

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

---

An editor has recently nominated List of 1971 box office number-one films in the United States for deletion on the grounds of the data being, well, complete bollocks. There are four editors involved in the discussion now and we have drawn to the conclusion the data is not just incorrect, but fabricated. It gets even worse. It affects the whole family of articles ranging from List of 1960 box office number-one films in the United States up to List of 1981 box office number-one films in the United States. The articles will probably have to be deleted or completely redone. The more troubling aspect is who is behind the fabrication. In every case Simpsonguy1987 created these articles and installed the data. There can be only two explanations: he copied the data from somewhere in good faith—but unfortunately did not provide a source—or even worse, he is behind the fabrication. I don't want to accuse an editor without evidence (at this point I hoping this is just a horrendous mistake) but the editor's talk page is littered with warnings addressing the lack of sourcing. I have asked him to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1971 box office number-one films in the United States so we can get our facts straight.

I think at this point an admin should take charge of the investigation. We have 22 articles of fabricated data that are going to have to be deleted, and we need to get to the bottom of what has happened here. It is crucial that the editor behind this gets a fair hearing, but if this is the result of editor misconduct then it could affect many more articles. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I noticed he is using boxofficemojo.com for sourcing on Chinese box office figures, which is owned by IMDB.com. I have some reservations about that as a WP:RS for box office figures. But regardless, an admin would only come into play if there is a behavioral issue. You could list all of them in a single AFD or on a RFC and get them nuked (which is a reasonable discussion to have), but the editor Simpsonguy1987 (who we are really talking about) isn't a heavy editor, and wasn't been notified of this discussion, something I fixed. We need some evidence of intentional wrong doing, WP:CIR or other policy violation before we start swinging the admin tools around. I completely get why you would at least be suspicious, but we need evidence first, and that doesn't require the admin tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think there is a behavioural issue here. First of all, most of those sales figures are clearly completely made up. As a editor said on the AfD, "The numbers were either tampered with or are utter nonsense. I've counted ten occurences of thousands and ones 3-digit groups being the same but transposed (examples in article: 4,395,593; 3,593,395; 1,294,924...). The chance of this being true for a random 7-digit number is approx. 0.3%" I've gone up to 1979 so far and the digits clearly aren't random (which they should be) on any of them - for instance multiple rows that end with the same 3 digits, completely random round figures ("$3,000,000") etc. If they were sourced that'd be different, but they aren't. Even though these articles were created a long time ago, given that as recently as 3 days ago this editor was vandalising ([265], and a few weeks ago [266] which I would have blocked for if I'd seen it) I'd strongly suggest that we don't mess about here and delete the lot. We're losing nothing useful and if anyone wanted to re-create them with actual data, that'd be great. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't doubt their may be a behavioral issue, I just haven't seen solid evidence. As for deleting the lot, yes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  Dennis, evidence of the fabrication is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1971 box office number-one films in the United States. I was sceptical at first but I am convinced by the statistical evidence. The only real question is who is behind the fabrication? Either Simpsonguy1987 has honestly copied it from somewhere (which I am hoping is the case) or he has undertaken the farbication himself. I am not trying to pre-judge the guy and have requested that he join the discussion and tell us where obtained the data from. The articles are almost certainly going to be deleted which will resolve the content problem, but if Simpsonguy does not provide us with a satisfactory explanation as to why he created 22 articles of fabricated data then I think that is a problem than cannot go unresolved. I simply thought that perhaps you guys should be aware of the problem and perhaps an admin would like to keep an eye on how it progresses. Betty Logan (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Again, I agree that the articles probably need nuking, but at this point, we don't know if he just copied it from a bad set of data, or he is doing it as some kind of vandalism. I saw the AFD before I commented the first time. I'm totally convinced the data is bad and that they should be nuked via AFD (not sure about CSD), but that is the content side of this problem. The question is whether it was intentional (stealthy) vandalism or error. Since I don't have any diffs to compare to, I guess I will go dig through all the recent contribs and see if there is a pattern. "Why" hasn't been answered yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Indef blocked after reviewing diffs over the last year. Someone else might want to just delete any article he created that isn't sourced. A list here might be helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - The 1971 article has been nuked as G3, so the AFD should be closed. This thread can stay open because, first, the other articles are still in question, and, second, there is a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I was working on it ;) Scripts have changed in the last couple of months, so I was a bit confused on the close, but it is done after I CSD'ed it. And yes, a list here would be good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  There is a list of created articles at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Simpsonguy1987. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• The evidence in the AfD is clear enough that I would be comfortable with all of these being speedied under G3 (hoax content). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• All deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat from 69.47.251.172

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

---

The IP user is threatening legal action against me ("will be handled in the most assertive way the law permits.") both on my talk page and their talk page.

The threat comes in response to me advising them of WP:NOTFORUM and asking them to lay off the antisemitic rants: [267]

Some of their rants, for context: [268] [269]

It doesn't seem like a serious threat, but thought I should raise it here in case they need to be blocked or whatever.

Thanks, --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. If they come back with the same nonsense, please report back here or drop me a note and they'll be blocked again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will. --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Very similar edits

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

---

• 2600:8800:FF0E:1200:F4A0:C59D:9AC4:A409 (talk)
• 2600:8800:FF0E:1200:C57:B925:112F:96D (talk)

On Portal:Current events there has been this combative IP when it comes to removing news. The IP at the top was blocked for 2 weeks in the past (wouldn't be block evasion here) for disruptive behavior that looks like hasn't ended. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

We face some case of extreme autism. Wakari07 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well the similarities are with the edit summaries, and self blanking the own talk-page. Its the sqame pattern of disruptive combative behavior that got them blocked in the first place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

They're in the same IPv6 /64 range, so yes this is the same user. Moving between /64 addresses in IPv6 is a normal event due to how subnets are allocated to the end-user, and this should not be interpreted as purposeful or bad-faith behavior or evasion by the user unless editing and disruption clearly show otherwise. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I took a quick look at the combined contributions of the /64 (2600:8800:FF0E:1200::/64) and found lots of useful contributions, going back several months... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't use "autism" as a pejorative. I know several people with autism in real life, none of whom would deliberately behave in a disruptive manner, and there are many good Wikipedia editors with autism. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor and have asked Wakari07 on their talk page to refrain from similar comments. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(And they have apologized) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That's great. We can put this to bed and move on. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Repeated violations of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:LIVESCORES

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

---

• 73.102.43.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2017–18 NFL playoffs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has persistently added game scores against LIVESCORES and without references as described by CRYSTAL. This has been going on for the past week, all on this article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours for repeated disruptive editing and despite being warned numerous times. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Two editors making two talk pages ludicrously confusing

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

---

2601:541:C100:AA00:34B4:C8A6:73D1:5FD4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and TheAceOfSpades115 (talk · contribs) on Talk:British Empire and File talk:The British Empire.png. I can't disentangle who said what or when, could someone with more tools than me try to work out what is going on? DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a few unsigned templates to comments that were added without a signature, if that helps. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

He keeps removing them, as well as removing the other editor's comments. And then changing his own comments. The page is now pretty much useless. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Block both for a day and template both for signing and indentation. If they can't get it after that, then indef under CIR. This isn't kindergarten. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not ask User:Wiki-Ed if he'd be happy to roll back Talk:British Empire to version of 26 December? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for inadvertent trolling. Made things clearer.--TheAceOfSpades115 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No apologies needed, TheAceOfSpades115. Not a big deal at all :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat on Paul Morris (producer)

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

---

• Paul Morris (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Newly created Reddogg56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made [this edit on Paul Morris (producer) with edit summary-- "i updated info about myself referenced in the article. I have proof that i was 30 in 1998 and i was fully employed as a music events producer. Don't change it back to the incorrect info or i will sue wikipedia". I warned them HERE and encouraged them to post to WP:BLPN for their concerns HERE. I'm at work and will not be able to follow further developmensts, so I've posted here. Notifying them on next to post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 04:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Worrying edit - block and RevDel needed

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

---

Can someone please block this piece of shit. This is wholly unacceptable and should really be reported to the authorities. I believe Irondome has also had the threat. Cassianto^Talk 16:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Irondome, do you want your little present reverted and revdelled? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah, appreciate the offer though NeilN! Let it stand as a monument to the ages. My reply rather reduces it to the absurd I think. Cheers, Si. Irondome (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Did anyone report this to emergency@? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@DoRD: I haven't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll send it over. I doubt that they'll be able to do much with it, but it can't hurt. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

External links

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

---

• a bot said that facebook could not be put in as a external link, even thought social media pages are in other notable non living persons biography pages, because the facebook page was in the name of the foundation which is also the name of the person but not in name alone.

• also that the foundation's link could not be there, as on other notable non living persons biography pages as on Ronald Regan's page and that it should also be taken out.50.254.21.213 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• can administrator way in on this ? 50.254.21.213 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:V first.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

See also WP:ELNO #10. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• did that so you would want to take down ronald regans page ????50.254.21.213 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  You seem to argue that Ronald Reagan is not encyclopedically notable. This is not the case, he is notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

comment: there is a notice board specifically for discussing external link concerns at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard ... I would guess this issue has been raised there more than once already, so would get a more complete response. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• i am saying that the bot user has said that the external link should be taken out is his page more privileged then others ?50.254.21.213 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• "if someone has a biography, you can add links to their Twitter or Facebook, but you can't add personal blogs to articles that aren't associated with those blogs. The Chelsea Manning biography contains links to her social-media pages, not to someone's blog that happened to comment on her. Does that help? SarahSV "
• this person is at your levle if she is wrong than go to her pages and take out her links.50.254.21.213 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  (ec) I apologize but I do not understand what your statement is. May be someone else could help. The code of the Reagan page does not contain the word "facebook".--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  @SlimVirgin: Sarah may be you understand what it going on?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• on the RR page there is a link to the foundation on the Chelsea Manning page there is a link to twitter you can not have it both ways there must be somebody that can fix interpret the rules this is not a court of law with a judge and case law this is policy by consensus.
• "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
• from the bot "other pages are wrong too (for Ronald Reagan, see Ronald_Reagan_Presidential_Library, I think that is where the official link belongs (and is duplicated), not on Ronald Reagan as an 'official site' "50.254.21.213 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note Amongst the confusion I think the basis of this issue is: whilst adding the social media links of the subject themselves (usually in the "External Links" sections) is actually OK, the issue here is that XLinkBot automatically reverts any addition of these by IP or non-confirmed users. The OP tried to do this on Helen Balfour Morrison and got reverted. They subsequently appear to think that this affects all users and pages, which of course it doesn't. I don't think there's anything to see here. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• OK then reverse the Helen Balfour Morrison because it meets the standards, people have worked hard on these sites showing the life and times of the notable person, if not than take out ronald regan and Chelsea Manning. 50.254.21.213 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any point. There's practically no content at all on the Facebook page, and the links to the Morrison-Shearer Foundation websites are already there. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• As I understand it, 50.254.21.213 was being prevented from adding links to the Morrison-Shearer Foundation to Helen Balfour Morrison and Sybil Shearer. I can't see any problem with that link being added, if that's all this is about. I don't understand the point about Facebook. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Nobberclog10

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

---

• Nobberclog10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been repeatedly creating unreferenced articles for years. I have left numerous warnings at their page [270], then moved some of the (100ish?) unreferened articles to draftspace and left a message for them asking them to re-submit via WP:AFC when they had references. They just edit-warred with no messages to move the unverified material back to the mainspace. I sent another message explaining that I was trying to avoid deletion by moving to draftspace and that ANI would need to happen if they continued to move unverified material to the mainspace - still no response, and continuing to just move them back.

I want this editor to communicate, first and foremost, and to stop moving unverified material to the mainspace. If they don't do this, they are violating WP:V and WP:CONDUCT and should be indefinitely blocked - I have spent hours trying to prevent this. I have pointed this user to WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required, but just silence, except creating more unreferenced articles, then moving more unverified material back from draftspace, which I guess is a strong answer in itself. Boleyn (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately since this ANI was opened, Nobberclog10 has moved several more unverified articles to mainspace and is still refusing to communicate. Boleyn (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours with a request to communicate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Feedback requested: "shithole" countries

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

---

Does Wikipedia policy allow an administrator to block an editor because that editor wrote in a discussion that a particular country or contenent is a "shithole"? If so, where exactly is that policy? For even more context, the discussion itself dealt with Trump's use of the term "shithole". Another question is, if the U.N. human rights office declares that referring to African countries is "racist", does that extend to Wikipedia discussions, where editors who refer to African countries as "shitholes", are then making racist comments and can be blocked for WP:CIVIL? Thank you. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It's Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the United States and we're debating whether or not someone can be blocked for using Wikipedia resources as a platform to denigrate entire countries (and by extension, their peoples) as "shitholes." QED. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That depends - but if an admin believed that editor was behaving in a deliberately racist manner, then a block would be completely normal. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no imaginable reason to call any country a "shithole country" in any civil discourse, not even reflexive defence of what can best be described as a US national disgrace. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Kingfisher: I was going to comment on your talk page about [271]:

WP:BATTLE begins, Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear.

Take a look over Wikipedia:General sanctions, and you'll see multiple decisions over racially-related conflicts, including Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Kingfisher, my answer to the question regarding talk page discussions (not article content) is 'no'. People are not nations perpetuating squalor for living conditions nor are such nations other Wikipedia editors, against whom we are to refrain in making attacks. But, as of late, Wikipedia has seemed more like the Twilight Zone than usual, so I'm certain the mileage among those commenting here will vary but lean 'yes' in response to this thread. No doubt the wikilawyering to support that 'yes' will be strong with them in the ensuing discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No, just no, Winkelvi. El_C 17:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is a sticky situation, but in general I would not block someone for those comments per se, were I an admin. I would however, urge them to tone down the rhetoric. Saying it once is expressing a personal view, but repeating it multiple times edges into disruption. For the record, I don't think defending the comments is disruptive. Believe it or not, I substantially agree with them, to the extent that "shithole" or "shitty" can be a euphemism for "possessed of a very low quality of life". I agree, however, that referring to them as "shitty" is needlessly antagonistic and offensive to the point of possibly causing disruption.

As for this incident (which has not yet resulted in any blocks or sanctions, merely warnings), I would advise you to take the warning to heart and understand that continuing to repeat the same claim, using the same words might not be racist, but it most certainly can be disruptive and incivil. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Mostly this. And a reminder we tolerate less disruption in AE topic areas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Winkelvi: Perhaps, if WP has lately become so irrational, it would be best to shut the fuck up when saying things that might just get you indef blocked on this "Twilight Zone" of a site? When you're not blocked, you always like to pretend it's important you be able to speak your mind. When you are blocked - and it happens a lot - you grovel and beg for one more chance. You seem incapable of remembering that you're constantly skating on thin ice until you've actually fallen through. So perhaps you should consider keeping your smug feeling of first world superiority to yourself, so people don't realize what a horrible person you are and just let you remain indef blocked next time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Is that a threat? For mentioning something I've observed re: collective behavior? While not mentioning specific editors? Or personally attacking anyone? And then you called me "a horrible person" which definitely is a personal attack? Wow. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

those are personal attacks and coming from an admin should not be acceptable here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The heat; the kitchen. El_C 18:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Simmer. GMG^talk 18:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• what this is showing that there are different rules for different people. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• I would imagine telling someone to fuck off is far worse. As I said on my talk page, there is no violation in calling Canada a shithole country, perhaps even extending to Canadians might be allowed as well. There is no individual being called a shithole and there is nothing wrong with calling America a shithole country, or Chad, Nigeria or Australia. If we're suddenly going to enforce civility, then do so but don't do so in s partisan manner. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• I sure have blocked quite a few IPs that added the word "shithole" to Haiti lately. Discuss! El_C 18:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• And by quite a few, I mean three. El_C 18:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• there is a difference between talk page and vandalism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 4) Those kind of comments don't belong on Wikipedia. They just foment discord. Anyone who wants to use this project to spread racist sentiments should fuck off.- MrX 18:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Probably not gonna be loved for this ..... We're all entitled to our opinions and views however some of those opinions and views don't belong on this website especially when it's racist like those made by Joseph and so personally I would say they should be blocked for it, We're an Encyclopedia ... not a place where you get to air your political views regardless of what they are. –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• what did I say that's racist? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Davey2010, this, "We're an Encyclopedia ... not a place where you get to air your political views regardless of what they are.", makes sense to me and I do tend to agree. Maybe even to the point of changing my 'no' to a 'yes'. I'll ponder it in that context, however, I still don't think that what Sir Joseph said is inherently racist in nature. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Seriously, are you getting the picture? Drop it, move on, take the L and quit wasting everyone's time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• someone says I made a racist comment and you tell me I can't seek clarification? And I'm not the one who started this thread. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• I personally percieve it as racist that may not of been your intention at all but personally that's how I perceive it. –Davey2010^Talk 18:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Winkelvi, I'm disappointed in you. For your comments here, as well as this (har har har, so funny) on Sir Joseph's page. Some day or other, I'll get tired of defending you. As for Sir Joseph, yes we know you "imagine" telling somebody to fuck off is far worse, since you're like a broken record with that. But it's all your imagination. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC).

(edit conflict)Bishonen, please see my latest comment in response to Davey2010. Perhaps that might redeem my reputation in your eyes (to some degree)? And also, please remember that as an individual on the autism spectrum, I see things in a more black-and-white manner than those who look at things on a more emotional level. I'm not beyond being reasoned with using logic and facts. Davey presented something that made me reconsider my position because he did it in a logical and fact-based manner that then appealed to the better angels of my nature. Being threatened (not you, another admin) and called a horrible person or being told I'm close to no longer being defended on anything ain't the way to get me to change my mind about anything because it's emotion- rather than fact- and reason-based. Just saying. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

While we're at it, is this really allowed on user/user-talk pages? GoldenRing (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not, GoldenRing? We have bouncing Wikipedia globes, suddenly appearing giant Jimbo faces, running horses, etc. Why not an animated American flag? Besides, this discussion is closed. Surely, you're not trying to stir it all up again, right? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Since there's about a 150 pages that use it, I doubt here's much to be done about it by now, tbh. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

+1 Serial Number 54129. Stay classy Winkelvi.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So an admin reopens a thread just to post about a flag icon? This is more of the toxic environment of Wikipedia. Let anyone know that if they have a different opinion, they face the micromanagement of the admins. It's a damn shame really. I've seen megabytes of text at user pages, I've seen polemic on user pages, I've seen userboxes supporting terrorist organizations, but suddenly someone has an American flag? Send out the guards. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Hoax

I've been ignored a few times, so now I'm "forum shopping" until someone explicitly tells me the only alternative is to revert manually until I get tired of it. Among other reasons why edits like this can't be true: no references that mention his name, and this similar edit where he claims a well-known title that hasn't been used since World War I. User:Abibmaulana been blocked, so now he usually uses a new IP address every time. We semi-protected The Blackstone Group, where most of the vandalism edit war can be found, so he moved to several similar articles about corporations until it expired. I've read about "range blocks", which might help because 19 of his IPs are in the range 120.188.4.122 to 120.188.95.142, but that doesn't include 162.217.248.203, 188.119.151.166, 114.4.78.231, 114.4.79.165, and 114.4.82.82. Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested might help, but not for me - 3 days ago I emailed according to the instructions on that page's edit page, and the only response was that my request is being held because I'm not on some list. This must be a common problem, so what usually happens? Art LaPella (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• I semi-protected the Blackstone article and threw out a rangeblock. I can't help you with the blacklist--sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want some consolation, I've also dealt with people owning the World Bank[272], Sony[273] and numerous other companies. It seems to be a thing. We have constructed temporary edit filters for this type of thing before, and that shouldn't be a problem this time (filter 684 perhaps), but don't use the mailing list - drop the request directly at WP:EFR, and provide a few more links than you have here. But, you might still need to wait for more than 3 days. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't made such a request, as the word "temporary" above implies you don't want the overhead of a filter if we aren't using it, and the problem hasn't returned so far (thanks User:Drmies). Art LaPella (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Art LaPella: I investigated this in a fair amount of detail before indeffing this user. It seems clear to me that this is self-promotion of some sort. I know for a fact that there are filters in place to catch other folks who create articles including a certain name, so the same should be possible here. I'm afraid I can't find the filter at the moment: possibly Oshwah may be able to help. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! There are a few edit filters in place to block and reject edits that add certain words to articles - I helped implement the filters to stop that "Ryan ross milk" vandalism that went rampant a few months earlier. Let me read through this ANI and see what I can suggest we do... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Keith-264

I hate WP:Dramaboard, but when things come this far... User cited above has:

1. Modified other's comments on talk pages without their approval, and then attempted to claim the now "modified" comment as their own. [274] [275] This is in clear violation of WP:TPO

2. When faced with a request not to do so, reverts and claims "vandalism". [276] [277] This probably borders on a violation of WP:3RR or at least breaches the spirit of that policy.

3. Instead of moving on and trying to participate in the subsequent constructive discussion Talk:Fifth_Battle_of_Yores#Fifth Ypres, user simply keeps reverting and reinserting his modifications. This shows at least a lack of understanding of WP:BRD.

4. This, in addition to an ambiguous attitude (akin to filibustering) towards a (earlier, unresolved) content dispute, often making slightly annoying remarks, dismissing whole paragraphs with detailed explanations as "spurious" and trying to impose a point of view which does not appear to be consensus. [278] 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm very confused about number 1 and looking at the edit history doesn't help things. Am I right that this dispute started because Keith-264 moved an IP's (I think you) comment from their talk page to the article talk page and noted they'd done so with a brief unsigned notice before the comment which amongst other things said "in error", and the dispute then started because said IP insisted that the note should be modified and you both then edit warred over it for ages with Keith-264 eventually trying to take over your comment after you tried to delete it?

If so, I would call for a major sharking (I don't think a trout is big enough) on both sides.

First it's generally accepted that if some leaves a clearly delineated notice before the comment when moving it, even if unsigned, it's obvious this is not part of the signed comment any more than the header is so it's not considered modifying the comment, meaning you had no real reason to modify it. If you felt so strongly about the note, a simply comment below mentioning the note was not part of your comment (unnecessary) and mentioning that it was not posted 'in error' (which I guess is your major objection) would have sufficed. That said, once you objected and modified the note and since it was unsigned, Keith-264 should not have edit warred to restore the original note. Although since there was no real reason for the edit in the first place, there was also no reason for you to edit war to your modified note either.

As for later claiming the comment, technically per the licence terms they are allowed to do that even if it is weird. However they should remove the signature completely and mention below in a signed post that the comment was originally posted by someone else who wishes it to be deleted so they're now claiming and signing the comment as their own.

I would put Keith-264 a bit more in the wrong but unless I've missed something the dispute is so silly that I still think we need a major sharking. I don't know if there's anything in 2-4, for me this is a classic case of one (first in this case) of the complaints is so silly that I didn't see any point looking at the rest.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I deleted a comment by another editor on my talkpage and added a comment on the article talk page with a note, the whole signed thus [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 09:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC) It was my comment, which is why I signed it and added a gloss to explain why. Another editor has taken exception to this, claimed ownership of my edit on the article talk page and vandalised the edit several times, which is why I s-/s his signing. Quite3 why anyone thinks that I didn't sign 'my edit on the article talk page I don't know. PS what is a sharking? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The biggest objection I had is the "in error" part - which is mostly what I removed. It wasn't in error - I was trying to get you to answer since you weren't responding on the article talk page - there's nowhere in policy where it is stated that placing a comment on a user's talk page about a current issue is in any caution, legalese incoming way, shape or form an error or other kind of erroneous acttiondone. So yes that's the biggest objection, because implying someone is in "error" isn't very polite. Point 4 also is irritating because at least 2 times there were significant periods of silence in the discussion (caused by you not answering, i.e. a classic case of filibustering) and since both were after new inputs to the discussion its quite shocking to realize the other isn't really trying to get consensus (i.e. this was akin to trench warfare). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"What is a sharking?" It's wordplay, intended as a superlative of WP:TROUT. Trouting is rebuking, so "sharking" is major rebuking. Art LaPella (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, are you as bored with this as me?Keith-264 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, I dislike WP:Dramaboard. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Article WUWN and user Famous54

Please could someone who carries more authority than I do explain to Famous54 the error of his ways? Philip Trueman (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Error of what ways? Without diffs, we have no way of knowing what, exactly, is being asked here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Umm, like every diff (so far) in his contribution history, which I linked to? Philip Trueman (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• A further warning given and the more inappropriate edits revdeled. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I've also added a notice to the user's talk page and offered to help the user if they need it. This should hopefully be all that we need to do in order for this issue to be resolved and the inappropriate edits to stop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Sss1111

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

---

• Sss1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sss1111 has been asked by me (my name appears on their talk page 21 times - all ignored!) and other editors about creating unreferenced articles. See User talk:Sss1111 especially User talk:Sss1111#Sources. Sss1111 has been directed towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but just refuses to answer the many messages and has continued to create unreferenced sub-stubs such as [279] and Dashihe East Station.

I would like Sss1111 to join a conversation about sources, acknowledge a proper understanding of the policies around sources and agree to source the articles they have created and to communicate with other editors in future. I have been trying to communicate with Sss1111 for a month, with no response except the creation of more unreferenced articles, which I guess is an answer in itself. Boleyn (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ordinarily I'd say that it's not ideal to write unsourced articles on train stations, but that it would be better to just source them yourself. But it seems that at least some of the content is a potential copyvio pasted from other websites. For instance, the first sentence of Fangshan Chengguan Station is identical to the first sentence of [280]. What do you think? Reyk _YO! 11:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The clue is in the term "Copyright". To claim that a copyright violation has occurred, there has to be evidence that the material was copied. One sentence is not enough to establish a violation as the sentence could have been independently written (in which case there is no copyright violation). If I (or anyone) were writing a single sentence on a station, it would most likely be in the form of, "XXX station is a station on YYY line of the ZZZ subway.". 85.255.235.229 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing also falls under the umbrella of "copyvio", it should be noted. Although (as you note) simple descriptive statements are not that; there's only so many ways to say "X is Y on Z", after all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrollers often do add sources, but the WP:BURDEN is on the creator to do so, and it's easy for one or two, but not for many, with more still being created. Refusing to reference or communicate, despite many warnings, is disruptive editing. Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Given the above, and the fact they've been here since February 2013 and have not once edited the User-talk or Wikipedia-talk spaces, I have indefinitely blocked per WP:COMMUNICATE having reached the level of disruptive editing. If and when (I wish I could only say the latter, but...) they start talking, any admin who is satisfied they'll continue communicating can unblock without needing to check with me first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, The Bushranger. Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Jeh

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

---

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

Jeh has been getting me on for quite a while. He seems to be telling me what to do (see my talk page here, here, here). I just wanted to bring consistency to my edits; why would one user object? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want administrators to do. He has concerns about your edits and has brought them to your attention. He's trying to teach you about norms and guidelines. He's not being uncivil. He's not making personal attacks. He's not violating any policies or procedures. There's no reason for this to be on the incidents noticeboard. only (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I have a great many radio and TV articles in my watchlist. Lately, @Mvcg66b3r:, a relatively new editor, has been making a great many changes to such articles, so naturally their edits show up on my watchlist. In Mvcg66b3r's edits I have for "quite a while" noticed a pattern of editing to change these articles to make them consistent, not necessarily with P or G or template documentation or past consensus or etc., but with Mvcg66b3r's own ideas about how things should be. If such edits continue, my comments at Mvcg66b3r's talk page about those edits will likely continue.

This isn't the first time they've responded to me with a spurious ANI report either (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#"Consistency" in radio/TV station templates ). Jeh (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Sportsfan 1234 removing information in bandy

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

---

• Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you look in to User:Sportsfan 1234's removing of sourced content in the article on bandy? The information has been removed by User:Sportsfan 1234 at least three times now. Bandy sport (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You are describing a content dispute, Bandy sport, and this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. There is also a behavioral component, because both you and Sportsfan 1234 are engaged in an edit war. If this continues, one or both of you will be blocked. A point in your favor is that you have commented at Talk: Bandy, while Sportsfan 1234 has not yet commented on this matter. You have also failed to notify Sportsfan 1234 of this discussion, which is required of you. Please do so now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have actually commented in the edit summary, which the other user has failed to do so. They did also notify me, but I removed the discussion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Commenting in edit summaries does not excuse edit warring, and is no substitute for talk page discussion, Sportsfan 1234. Stop the edit warring, and discuss the matter at Talk: Bandy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not say or mention that. What I am trying to say is I have not just reverted without giving a reason, which I have in my summaries. Anyways, it appears to have settled down. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have notifief Sportsfan 1234. If you look at the history of his talkpage, you can see he renoved my note. /Bandy sport — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandy sport (talk • contribs) 08:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I confirm indeed that Sportsfan 1234 have seen the notification on their talk page (since they reverted it at 00:48) and still went on to revert the edit (at 00:51) without engaging into any discussion. This is not good. (On the other hand, the point they are trying to make is possibly correct).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In spite of this incident report here, Sportsfan 1234 continues to remove the information and has not written anything on the talk page. Can I undo his change again? Or should I wait until Sportsfan has been blocked or something? /Bandy sport — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandy sport (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss this content dispute at the article talk page, and if that fails, WP:DRN is thataway→. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I only removed the reference which indicates "South Korea" dictates if the sport is on the program. How does one nation dictate that? Its against all common sense. If you see my last edit to the page, I actually did not revert the entire edit. I just removed the part that made absolutely no sense. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Cencoredme

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

---

• Cencoredme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Pennsylvania child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Child sexual abuse in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_States [281]

I reviewed the contributions of this user, e.g at the linked Drafts, and I have to say I am concerned that this very new user is here on a mission to Right Great Wrongs and is thus not being as careful with respect to WP:BLP as we require. That and the general principle that any username with "censored" (spelt correctly or not) is presumptively WP:NOTHERE. Can a couple of other admins please have a look at this with me? Guy (Help!) 14:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello! My username is irrelevant, it's neither here nor there. I feel my contributions are not to right wrongs, although I make no attempt to hide my feelings, but more so about contributing to subjects that are of great interest to me for personal reasons. And as a dual cit I feel that I (as well as anyone) should be able to make the contributions I have without feeling like I should have to justify them.Cencoredme (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Also note that on Right great Wrongs it states "on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them." Which is what I have done, my pages are sourced, one extremely heavily from well respected newspapers such as The Guardian, Reuters, etc. This is not a witch hunt, this is myself creating articles that are worthy of creation.Cencoredme (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed the contributions of this user, e.g at the linked Drafts, and I have to say I am concerned that this very new user is here on a mission to Right Great Wrongs and is thus not being as careful with respect to WP:BLP as we require. That and the general principle that any username with "censored" (spelt correctly or not) is presumptively WP:NOTHERE. Can a couple of other admins please have a look at this with me? Guy (Help!) 14:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I had some issues with user in the past few hours regarding the two drafts you list above. I was reviwing both drafts and found that each had serious BLP and BLP PRIMARY violations in them. Using the AFC script I markrd the draft with the selection that blanks the draft and instructs the creator to only work on the draft from the history. The editor then reverted those putting the violations back on the front page of the draft. There was much more abusive posts from her with two personal attacks toward me.[282] Finally another editor intervened and tried to tell her she was wrong about these blp violations. See here: [283]

Please do be aware that after all of this drama Cencoredme created a new article directly, not through AFC. I will put the link at the top for everyone to peruse. [284] Thank you. Lacypaperclip (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that my language may have been confrontational but my frustrations were valid, voiced wrongly. The draft referred to by Lacypaperclip is clearly not in violation of BLP due to the fact that the perps named are deceased and have been for years. This was shown repeatedly in the referenced sources. They are not violations as they are not living people, they are in line with the sites rules. In fact the only one that is still living and is named is named because they were convicted. There is nothing wrong with my article, controversial? depends who you ask, but there are no violations of BLP.Cencoredme (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cencoredme: Please stop edit-warring on ANI. It is not a good idea. GoldenRing (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC) By which, of course, I don't mean that edit-warring is a good idea elsewhere. Just that the consequences are usually particularly swift here. GoldenRing (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked Cencoredme for 24 hours for edit warring to keep those BLP violations in the draft. Darkness Shines did a good job of revising the draft to make it comply with BLP and Cencoredme simply refuses to understand why that material cannot remain there without sourcing. Katie^talk 15:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Katie, I was glad to be able to seek help from Darkness Shines since this editor just would not listen to my explanations, DS also told her she was wrong. Maybe she is just so new she hasn't grasped all the BLP policies yet. She only has done around 100 edits in total. Maybe Guy is right, she is only here to Right Great Wrongs. Wow, looks like she is bashing me in her unblock request! That can't be a good way to get unblocked. Anyway thanks to all! Lacypaperclip (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

1.11.66.85

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

---

• 1.11.66.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Could an admin please delete the many pages created by Special:Contributions/1.11.66.85, and consider blocking the IP too. I can't see their deleted contribs but looking at their talk page, it doesn't seem like this is the first time that this has happened. –72 (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Feedback requested: "shut the fuck up"

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

---

For clarity, I have four questions:

1. Does an editor telling another editor to "shut the fuck up" break WP:CIVIL policy or any other Wikipedia policy?
2. Because not one administrator on the ANI page made a comment about an admin telling an editor to "shut the fuck up", should editors understand that it is an acceptable Wikipedia practice, or are administrators allowed to break policies of which editors are not?
3. Since many admins stated that referring to a country as a "shithole" is a blockable offense, and, conversely, not one admin commented when an admin told an editor to "shut the fuck up", should editors understand that it is worse to denigrate a country than to humiliate editors?
4. When an administrator tells an editor to "shut the fuck up" then writes in their edit summary, "help me, a MINIMUM of three more years of these people thinking they're the new "normal", does that align with WP:BATTLE "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear?

Thank you for the clarity. The Kingfisher (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Some users sometimes say such fucking bullshit that they need to be told to shut the fuck up to avoid being blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion was closed. Please stop trying to pour gasoline on the smoldering embers. THAT in itself is disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• I really wish people would shut the fuck up about this issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Concur with Ymblanter: some users need to be told to shut the fuck up. Telling them is not inherently a CIVIL violation, but may be so on a case-to-case basis. On the balance I think this incident was not. Furthermore, it is far worse to make racist comments about an entire country than to give assertive instructions to individual editors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Likewise repeating the racist comments of others, notwithstanding positions of power held by said others. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(after ec) It's also usually a bad idea to call attention to such an incident, especially if time has already passed and nobody else thought it was a big enough deal to follow up on. Things like this are often best left alone. Don't be an angry mastodon. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No, it doesn't break policy, and no, it also isn't very polite, so it's better not to make a habit of it. Haven't you trolled this board enough, The Kingfisher? Your battleground posts on Sir Joseph's page suggest you like nothing so much as stirring things up. A look at your contributions suggests the same. Do you realize that if an editor is behaving in a persistently aggressive and battleground manner, as you have been doing ever since you registered a year ago (claiming to be a new user, which I do not believe, looking at your second edit ever, a full-fledged article with footnotes, categories, etc), they can be blocked as a net negative to the encyclopedia? Now start a third thread about my "threat" and Ymblanter's "incivility", go ahead. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC).

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

RJ Pxxxxxx

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

---

Would RJ Pxxxxxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be an appropriate candidate for WP:NOTHERE or should I wait for significant post-warning vandalism? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef - only edits are promoting a book on Amazon. Thanks, ansh666 02:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Trolly user page

I know we're given a bit more latitude on content in userpages,but having come across User:LukeFanboy,he appears to have used his whole page for no other purpose than for trolling.I am unconvinced by their claims that they are dead,aged 0,winner of a championship for tall people,or a mythical beast... Lemon martini (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible canvasing and meatpuppetry

This has recently been bought to my attention [[285]] with comments like "I signed up to Wikipedia -for this, can I influence somehow?" and "Good news, Yair: the article passed editor review! But *just* barely. Still need some editors with knowledge to fill out the article and expand it with info." This was raised here [[286]], which in turn was a response to this [[287]]. The AFD did seem to feature a number of almost inactive or fairly new accounts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven - For sake of clarity here, we're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillel Neuer, correct? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought reading the twitter feed would have told yo, it is a resolved AFD here [[288]] however (apart form the fact it was not raised here at the time) it seems like it may still be a possible issue (given some of the comments (on the twitter feed) with the article Antisemitism in the Labour Party. But it seems it may well be a wider issue then one article or AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Slatersteven - Ah, thank you. I saw the twitter feed but got distracted and didn't get to read through the whole thing. I'm going through the AFD now... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• The incident first came to light on the AfD page [289] with a noticed uptick in votes and brought up by Tontag. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• (ecx3)A bit pointless bringing this up, the article survived AFD due to policy based arguments not because of numbers. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A, It was no consensus.

B, As I said above this may not be a resolved issue of canvasing, it may still in fact be having an impact.

C, The "threat" of (for example) making changes to the article to better reflect "the facts" means that there is still the possibility of disruption. It also seems that it is not occurring on just the one AFD, thus is (clearly) an ongoing issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No consensus is equivalent to keep for AfD purposes, so that argument is irrelevant. If you have an issue with the way the discussion was closed, the proper way to resolve the dispute is to discuss it with the closing admin, and then to take it to WP:DELREV if that doesn't resolve the dispute. Iffy★Chat -- 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to DS's claim that it was a vote for keep (it was not)due to policy based arguments (in fact it was made clear both sides had valid points). Also this is a wider issue then the one AFD (as I also say in my reply to DS). IN fact it was (as I think it should be clear from my OP) that I am more concerned about further potential disruption in article spaceSlatersteven (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think Oshwah was referring to this newer tweet; this twitter feed has once again announced an AFD in hopes of influencing it. If there is suddenly a major upswing of keep !votes, we'll know why.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I thought this was about the news article which was brought up on the article talk page, obviously I've missed something Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• All that really shows is E.M.Gregory watches this Yair Rosenberg's twitter feed, saw his piece, and decided to troll everyone at the talk page by calling them POV editors -- with that as "evidence". I am more concerned about the AFD process being disrupted on more than one occasion by a twitter handle.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• How is your above comment not a violation of the FIVE PILLARS? We get it, you don't like EM Gregory and you have a bias, but your constant hounding of him and behavior has got to stop. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph throwing out the word bias again, I see. May you describe my bias please? I am unfortunately unaware of it; my apparent shear dislike for Gregory (which I was also unaware of) has blinded me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with having a bias, we all have one and it's real silly to say you don't have one. But your comment did not come across as something neutral and AGF. Maybe I misread it but it seemed to me to be a little off. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So how would you have described E.M.Gregory's comment about "POV editors making Wilipedia look bad"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with it 100%. There are POV editors and they make Wikipedia look bad. In this case, (both Neuer and Antisemitism) we have clear notable people or subjects that warrant 100% inclusion. There are certain topics in Wikipedia that for some reason or another, many people want to hush up. I also don't get why you're asking me this. I'm not the one who called someone "trolling." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Really so having 2 articles that mention something is "hushing it up"?. I am asking you because you have tried to defend a blatant attack on other editors. Oh and I do agree it was trolling, what else is linking to an inflammatory article (on an articles talk page) and using it to attack other edds without actually making an constructive suggestion as to how to use the linked article not trolling?

Not only does it violate rules about making PA's but also ones about what article talk pages are for, and maybe even a few other rules for good measure. It was nothing but a disruptive act of soapboxing. Perhaps we need to ask admins if this was a rules violation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• 1.) It is entirely routine to mention the fact that an article has received media attention on the talk page of the article. 2.) It is absurd to suppose that we can prevent Tablet (magazine) or other media from covering our editing process. Nor can we prevent such coverage from inspiring people to become Wikipedia editors. Such inspiration is not meatpuppetry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not "entirely routing" to attack other editors o POV pushing and bringing Wikipedia into disrepute on article talk pages. And there are things we can do to mitigate the effect of of Wiki canvasing. That (by the way) is my main concern here, to mitigate the potential effects of of wiki canvasing (for example is there a link between the author of the tablet article, and any edds who have edited those pages, and if so should that user get a ban?).Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we are talking about a man Yair Rosenberg, with over 53,000 twitter followers who writes for a popular magazine, Tablet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• User:TheGracefulSlick certainly does, as User:Sir Joseph writes above, have political biases that lead her to behave towards me - and towards other editors with whom she disagrees - in an aggressive, WP:BATTLEGROUND manner.
• Here she follows me to other users talk pages just to be gratuitously nasty, belittling, and assume bad faith (I found this because she pinged me) : [290].[291], presumably to "improve" her stats at AfD. She certainly knows how to strike a comment properly [292].
• Here: [293] TGS follows an editor with whom she regularly disagrees on terrorism-related AfDs to an arcane American history article, a topic she rarely if ever, and makes a false assertion: "On further examination, the sources Icewhiz provides here are passing mentions, not indepth coverage." In fact, the editor she accused had specifically brought to the page and flagged at AfD an INDEPTH 2013 article in the Saturday Evening Post.[294] To GracefulSlick, the point often seems to be "winning," even by means of making false assertions that appear to discredit fellow editors.
• Here: [295] she was canvassed by an editor to come to his defense at ANI, and she complied, accusing me of being "someone who 'may' have it out for you." In fact, it was my third comment in that thread; my first two were defending the work of the accused editor.
• Here she makes a series of gratuitous attacks on and complaints about fellow editors, here: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/7700_16th_Street_NW&diff=813949404&oldid=813866725]; [296]; [297], [298], [299], here the slurs and innuendo are about a page that I found at AfD and almost completely rewrote [300], she then improperly changed her iVote to a "comment". E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• May I remind you the last time you made these accusations (at an ANI thread for your behavior) on the same flimsy "evidence", the admin quickly disregarded your frivolous claims. Taking diffs out of context doesn't prove I have a political bias; it does, however, prove you handle your own personal issues with editors by trying to deceive others. Now, if you haven't noticed, this is a thread on canvassing and meatpuppetry. If you want to file something against me, I encourage you to do so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sigh. This is entirely unsurprising. In my 12+ years in the IP area, canvassing from the pro Israeli editors have virtually been the norm in the AfDs Huldra (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment  This AfD diff provides the same Twitter URL of the OP here.  I searched for "can I influence" and I don't find the quote at the URL.  Why are we looking at off-Wiki links anyway? 
  Beyond answering that question, the other thing actionable I see here is User:TheGracefulSlick "encouraging" a self-WP:BOOMERANG, which given the 2nd link in the OP, [301], TheGracefulSlick has been outed for accusations of WP:CANVASSING.  The diff itself also has the personal attack recorded in the edit summary.  Possibly ignore the accusation along with an admonishment not to stir up the community, would suffice.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unscintillating, I appreciate your concern, but I have never been outed and C. W. Gilmore never accused me of canvassing. Please read and understand the thread before making such statements. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Concern?  Ok by me.  Just remember that the next time you go "encouraging" an ANI filing against yourself, this episode will be in the record.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Edgarmm81

Edgarmm81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could somebody please evaluate if this user is here to contribute to encyclopedia, and, if yes, whether they are competent enough to contribute. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - Looking now. Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - I see the concerns regarding the edits made to Catalan independence referendum, 2017 that were reverted here and here citing multiple issues (such as NPOV concerns and replacing referenced content with different information). Looking at the article's talk page, on the surface it looks like the user made multiple edits to it that were not appropriate (1, 2, 3, 4) but some of them contain what appears to be an attempt to explain. "Although https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter (sic) and Spanish unionist may feel uncomfortable, this accusation is well-grounded. Let me show you some evidences and abnormal activities" - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was trying to explain, but it clearly looks like this user is driven to edit here and by a single-purpose. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis. Let us give them more rope then before blocking indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - You're welcome, and I agree - give him enough rope; the tiger will show its stripes and the obvious will come to light if the user's intentions aren't to build an encyclopedia :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) I am not expecting that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter shares my point of view. It is obvious his ideology and his intentions. But, unlike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter, I am a witness. And I wish I could find articles for half of the things I saw!

But anyways, almost all of my references are excerpts from... UNIONIST MEDIA to keep it more objective and neutral!!! Who knows what would have happened if I had used pro-independence articles! Btw, would https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter dare to write this article just with pro-independence information?

Never mind, let's focus and let me explain my points in more detail:

Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crystallizedcarbon says, he's right when he says "like the video of an officer hit with a chair". But that policeman is one of the 12 wounded policemen reported by the Catalan Health Service. Besides, the man who threw that chair was arrested.

Moreover, there is another video of a policeman bitten during a charge and another one of civilians throwing stones at a armoured van leaving Sant Carles de la Rapita (after causing 40 wounded people), which has no consequences for those policemen health. Anyway, what I was trying to point out is the incongruence when saying it does add up to 431 (like the Minister said), especially when there were reported just 39 that night by the same Minister(so it makes nearly 400 new injured during that night), and above all, because there are no clinical reports beyond the 12 policemen attended by the Catalan Health Service, no further documentation, just speculation of newspaper in the heat of the moment. Furthermore, the coordinator of all the police bodies during the Referendum, Mr Diego Pérez de los Cobos, said "the police was received with direct violent actions", but "there were only 5 arrests". Sorry, it is impossible to believe that after 431 wounded policemen, there were just 5 people arrested... And I have to say that, obviously, it is likely it could be more wounded people, but the ones who were not attended by any hospital were because they had superficial injuries. And that applies to both sides! (policemen + civilian, not just policemen).

UPDATE: On the 11/jan/2018, the Spanish Police (Policia Nacional) sent to the Permanent Instructional Court number 7 of Barcelona an internal report saying that there were 40 injured antiriot policemen, the most severe suffering from a sprain of wrist and a broken finger. 5 policemen were recommended to have off days.

That makes a range between 12 and 40 injured policemen. Far from the 431 policemen that Wikipedia is currently reporting.

Like I said, this article is clearly biased on the Spanish point of view and it has generated indignation among Catalans. And what's more, when you try to expose the other point of view, the censorship appears, as usual in Spain, and that's what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter is trying to do.

Please, keep in mind the report about lack of plurality and indepenence of the TV collaborators in the public RTVE for the whole 2014... and it keeps working like this and then it was extended to the private TV). Therefore, please, expect overreactions from the Spanish side, as they are not used to dealing with contrary opinions, and that's why they struggle and reject it, by calling the Catalan information as "biased", "sensationalist" and other words that I will not say.

Long time ago, I wrote a neutral NPOV in which I explained the difference between legality and legitimacy of the referendum. And the reason why Spain grabs legality and why Catalonia grabs legitimicy... but you did not publish it, either.

Please, accept my apologies because my English is not that good and I try to explain it the best I can. Besides, I am a newbie on Wikipedia, and I struggle. For this reason, there are so many edits. Please, take into account just the last version!

Another point highlighted by by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crystallizedcarbon: Regarding the issue "the Spanish Ministry of the Interior instructed the Spanish Attorney General to investigate whether the accusations of police sexual abuse against protesters made by Mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau, who had mentioned the councilor's statements, could be considered a legal offense of slander against": It is true that the Ministry instructed it, but you forgot to say that it has been reported that the Mayor of Barcelona was going to sue the Spanish police for some sexual improper behaviour. This is relevant and you forgot it... You are biasing the article by omitting why the Mayor of Barcelona made that accusation!!! Furthermore, it is false that the case of Marta Torrecillas (the woman of the broken fingers) was found far-fetched by an investigation, but because Marta Torrecillas modified her statement the following day, as I have reported several times. But this case is one of the most important points that the Spanish unionism use to discredit the Referendum, so that's why they omit that rectification, and Wikipedia is working like a unionism abettor unintentionally (bias). So, please, modify the current explanation on Wikipedia, since it is deceiving. If you like it, put it under the heading of "Other controversies" and provide the full explanation, or else, just remove it, as you are not explaining all the wounded people, individually.

With reference to the elections results (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crystallizedcarbon), it is relevant to give an interpretation of the results, as readers are not experts on Catalan nor Spanish elections. It must reflect that:

1) The pro-independence parties confirmed the majority of seats. 2) The Spanish ruling party was severely punished, becoming the seventh (and last) party in votes and seats, achieving just 4 seats in the Catalan Parliament out of 135 (insufficient to constitute a Parliamentary Group). 3) Although the Spanish government claimed the Catalan Referendum had no guarantees, had several irregularities and, even, people voted several times, the number of pro-independence votes in the Catalan elections (that took place on the 21/12/2017) was greater than in the Referendum.

Please, notice I gave you a reputed British reference..

I would also like to point out that this article is full of speculation. Being investigated or suing is a National Sport in Spain. There are lots of reciprocal accusations, and there will be more in the future. Besides, it has been the stategy of the Spanish Government since the beginning of the Catalan affair, as there is no separation of powers in Spain (10/12 of the Tribunal Constitucional judges are appointed by politicians, for example).

And what's more, until the judge makes a decision, you are reporting just an specualtion. And this article has plenty of that. Under investigation: Mr Trapero, Mrs Colau, the police for sexual harassment, politicians, judges malfeasance and some you are not including... Please, remove it until you find real evidence, it looks like a tabloid, instead of an objective article.

Finally, keep in mind that those biases and speculations have been on this website over 3.5 months, and the most visits took place in the following days after the event. You should have been more objective, but in fact you have been releasing a very biased Spanish unionist point of view for long, enhancing sensationalismt, delivering opinions and no contrasted information, providing speculations and inaccuracies. Please, beware of that next time.

Those to whom "my ideology and my intentions" are "obvious" probably should get less rope. Today I was already accused in being Slovakian nationalist, Spanish nationalist, someone who can not see obvious consensus, someone who does not speak English, and someone who must be deadmin for behavior unbecoming for administrator. To be honest, this is becoming too much for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Calling names to editors is out place and insistence on it should have whomever does that blocked, I have gone through that myself (and worse). Now I have this article on my watchlist and seen how just having the parliament of Catalonia mentioned at the beginning of the article was a struggle and a torment, despite being one of the five Ws, which eventually led me to largely abandon this article out of tediousness.

So I have not looked through all the details of this dispute, but I have seen deceptive edits summaries and misrepresentation of sources in this article that I have pointed other times, which honours the claims of Edgarmm81,like this gratuituous removal edit, or the mass removal of sourced information and no attention to detail I reverted myself, polishing it next.

The editor's behaviour is coarse, that is true, but his/her claims in form (but also in content) seem to be well-grounded and constructive. A didactic approach applies, since s/he does not seem to be familiar with the rules of the EN WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not defending the article at all, and, as a matter of fact, have absolutely no affiliation with any side of the conflict. I just seriously doubt that Edgarmm81 can achieve anything in this way, and that they are willing to learn. For the time being, they are just a single-purpose account, they do not have any other edits to Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter, you are scared because I am unveiling the lies that the Spanish Government has been systematically spreading. And what's more, it is so weird that you permit those manipulations and, now, you feel so offended, nervous and trying to censor and boycott my work... even though I provide clear unionist references... Like I said, this article on Wikipedia has caused a huge indignation among the Catalans, because of its bias, partiality and lack of objectivity, and that's why I opened this account, to shed light on it and correct all the misinformation and manipulation. By the way, I wish I hadnt had to do it...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarmm81 (talk • contribs)

Ok, the user basically says themselves they are not here to contribute to the creation of encyclopaedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Ymblanter. Maybe this editor confuses Wikipedia with a forum. A small example are these 50 consecutive edits on the Catalan independence referendum, 2017 talk page. Or maybe thinks it's a propaganda platform: see this edit made a little over an hour ago, despite what is being discussed here, that I have undone --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, absolutely not. It is actually pointing to the deficencies and problems raised by the present, poor state of the article, both related to the statements made and its sources, which is actually a systemic issue, related to WP:RS. As an informed person, I would not come to this article to get an accurate picture of the events, it is full of noise, starting from the very lead section, unbalanced and greatly pumped up in order to, I would say, condition the reader's view, like attempting to charge the first sentences with 'illegal' and a string of legal considerations, discussed here, for one.

This concern for keeping pumping the lead, left the lead section swollen, which I pointed here, as editors like BallenaBlanca kept adding details, highlighting details in the same direction, I should say. Also this insistent edit by BallenaBlanca (note the deceptive edit summary) after I corrected the misrepresentation of source (afterwards reverted by me again), does him/her little favour.

Edgarmm81 does not know well how WP operates, but that is not a big issue, it is in the spirit of the WP to keep learning and building up. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki LL You are showing biased information by not giving all the information. Why do not you show this edit of mine, where I explained why I unmade the other edit?

Also, you said "or the mass removal of sourced information and no attention to detail I reverted myself" A veteran user like you? Do you stay so calm after saying something similar...? Edits that were original research and referenced with messages on Twitter? For more explanations see [302]

And without taking into account that you have not had the courtesy of pinging me after mentioning me, to give me the possibility to participate in this discussion, which I have seen by chance.

These are good examples of the type of edits / behaviors that other users and I are trying to neutralize.

Anyway, I have the feeling that the discussion is being diverted and that this is not the place to discuss the content of the Wikipedia articles. Am I wrong? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca:You are right on pinging (I had still the echo of other discussions with users protesting the use of ping) and your last point, but since you were citing 'neutrality'. On this, you mention above, and your claim, what do you mean? I will not elaborate on your other claims either. Go to the article's or my talk page, if applies, for that. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Fram and incivility

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

---

Now, I understand that likely nothing good come out of this request, but I am afraid I can not help it. Fram developed an unfortunate habit of interpreting my statements and then saying I have said something I did not. In particular, here they claimed I said something which I did not say. I quoted verbatim what I said and they insist it is the same as their interpretation. I said they are lying - well, I always thought I know better what I am saying than other people, including Fram, and if they insist, it means they are doing it deliberately. They continued to follow me and came to may talk page, where said that I can not understand my own statements. Could it be stopped somehow? I long ago stopped replying to the points made by Fram because they have never ever changed their opinion about anything and they show up as extremely aggressive. It is unfortunate they continue to be admin. However, apparently, if I do not reply at all people think I do not have anything to reply to start with, and when I do reply Fram becomes even more aggressive. Last time they filed an Arbcom case against me and failed miserably. Avoiding them completely is not really an option, since they continue to comment on the points I make. In the past, they said they have no reason respecting me (which I am sure I will be able to find a diff, if someone insists). To be honest, I am completely fed up with this, to the point that I thought in the morning I should retire. Any advise will be appreciated. I am not comfortable working in a project anybody could say I do not understand my own statements, refuse to retract, get away with it and continue doing so on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Your statement[303], with my interpretation, as I said on your talk page.

• "Well, both communities felt confident enough to award me administrator privileges, something which I have not seen you to achieve with either of them." = I'm an admin, you are not.
• "But, as I said, you are certainly entitled to have your opinion on the subject, even if it is completely uninformed and aggressive. This is ok with me." = you may have your own stupid opinion
• "I am not even going to report you for a personal attacks. But I hope you will excuse me if I stop spending my time replying you." = I'm not going to reply to you any further.

Apparently that statement of yours meant something else (not sure what), and my interpretation of it was "a lie". Complaining about incivility when you are dismissing a user because you are an admin and they are not, and stating things like "I do not feel I should be communicating with someone who (i) calls me a liar thus lying themselfves; (ii) on top of this have difficulties understanding elementary text.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC) " (again, not about me) and so on... Perhaps someone needs to remind Ymblanter that accusing people of lying is a personal attack and is normally not tolerated on enwiki without very good evidence.

Above, you claim that you "quoted verbatim what [you] said and they insist it is the same as their interpretation." Where did you quote yourself verbatim? As far as I can tell, I am the only one who has actually quoted your statement (first in full, then in separate sentences with my "interpretation"), you haven't. Fram (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did obviously expect Fram to comment, and I did not expect them to say anything except for that this is only my own fault, and they have never done anything wrong. I would still appreciate comments by other uses how I can avoid this in the future. For the context, it might be good to remind that my statement they quote and misinterpret was a response to "I cant put it any simpler to you, you clearly don't even understand the scope of your own pet project <Wikidata>", directed at me by a user who does not participate at Wikidata and has vastly inferior experience at the English Wikipedia than I have (much shorter tenure, 10 times less edits).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"I did not expect them to say anything except for that this is only my own fault, and they have never done anything wrong." Yes, that's clearly what I said, I have never done anything wrong. Thanks for making my point. Any update on where you quoted verbatim what you said? Fram (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, we can watch bullying in real time. If I say yes, they would say I accepted my error; if I say no, they would say I still do not understand anything. This is exactly this behavior of Fram which I find aggressive, outrageous and annoying, and, again, I kindly ask administrators to jump in.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

??? You claimed in the opening statement here that you quoted the statement I lied about verbatim. I don't see where you did this. I may have missed it, or you may have misremembered. This is not bullying, this is not a yes or no question (no idea where you see a question where you need to say "yes" or "no" here). You made a factual claim, which you either can easily show to be true, or which you can strike-out as a mistake. Neither will make your complaint or my reply "the winner". Fram (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Only comment I am going to make and hope this is speedily closed as the rubbish it is. As the editor who some of the comments were initially aimed at I entirely concur with Fram's 'interpretation'. I say interpretation, its not interpreting something to read what someone actually wrote. Either Ymblanter has a serious English language issue, or they are being disingenuous here. To make his comments mean something other than exactly what they said, both in wording and within the context of the discussion - they would have to say something completely different. Ymblanter blatantly attempted to pull rank and avoid direct questions that he was unable to answer without making himself look foolish. That's his problem, not anyone else's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  Exactly. A brilliant example. I am continuously exposed to this bullying, and I am really tired of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I did obviously expect Fram to comment, and I did not expect them to say anything except for that this is only my own fault, and they have never done anything wrong; well, Fram really didn't do anything wrong in this situation so that is correct! Please close this before there is a boomerang. His "interpretations" of your comments were not outlandish and actually quite to the point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• I would have interpreted the first two sentences of this diff exactly how Fram did; i.e. "I'm an admin and you're not, so I'm correct" and "You can have your opinion, but you're wrong (or worse)". Now this is either simple condescension, verging on rudeness, or it's a language issue on your part which means you don't realize you're doing it. Neither of those are useful attributes for an administrator to have. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• From what I've seen of this discussion, Ymblanter is quick to antagonise people by belittling them and their opinions. For instance, announcing loudly to everyone that Fram's opinions should be ignored for reasons unknown, and that Only In Death's opinions matter less because he's not an admin and Ymblanter is one. He then adopts a victim posture when people object. Perhaps Fram and others have misunderstood what Ymblanter meant with the "I'm an andmin and you're not" stuff but, if so, that would only be a misinterpretation and not a lie. And since Ymblanter won't say what he did mean, it's all speculation anyway. I suggest closing this as unactionable since it's clear that Fram has done nothing wrong and it's also unclear what admin actions are being requested here. Reyk _YO! 10:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I did say what I meant (on my talk page, because I could not reply in the hatted section), and Fram disagreed and said that their interpretation is correct, and not mine.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: For the sake of clarity, could you please point to a diff where you explain what you did mean by this? It looks above like you say that you quoted that verbatim and that you explained it at your talk page, but I can't see either there. GoldenRing (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(EC) I looked at your talk page and I have no more clarity. You say you meant "they have way less experience that I have" but the comment that seems to be referred to said nothing about experience. It said "Well, both communities felt confident enough to award me administrator privileges, something which I have not seen you to achieve with either of them". Even given that experience is a prerequisite for admin privileges on wikipedia and I'm assuming wikidata, it doesn't follow that someone without admin privileges has less experience than someone that does. So if you had meant to comment on relative experience levels you should have referred to experience levels rather than something else which is at best a very weak proxy. As for the reason you did not wish to engage further, it was fairly unclear from the comment. Was it because of the admin thing? Was it because your regarded their opinions as "completely uninformed and aggressive"? Was it because you felt that they had engaged in personal attacks? Even given that Fram chose a fairly harsh interpretation, the obvious solution was to explain further rather than accuse someone of lying when your comment itself was unclear. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The whole discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Discussion (linking to Wikidata RfC). The first diff by Oidde I was specifically responding to: [304]. This is what I said: [305]. This was the reply: [306]. This is what I replied, and this is what Fram refers to: [307]. This is how Fram refers to it: [308] (first three lines: You are the one who refused to engage further with another experienced editor because you are an admin and they aren't). My explanation that this is not what I said: [309]. In plain words: I indeed stopped discussing the Wikidata issue with Oidde, but not because I am admin and they are not, but because I do not think they understand they are talking about, and on top of this they find it useful to teach me about Wikidata (in form of personal attacks) despite the obvious fact that I have more experience both on Wikidata and Wikipedia than they have. The reaction we basically see in this topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The more I read into these discussions, the more I wonder how this was even possible. You must have been an entirely different editor then because you can't seem to understand what is wrong with your comments and responses now. Your total failure to communicate appropriately is a vital failure in your duty as an admin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

At least you must be proud you have never voted for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(Multiple EC) Can you give one or two specific examples of what you said, how Fram intepreted it and what you actually meant? Because having looked at the various diffs and associated comments, I can't work out what specifically your complaining about. You mentioned something about "quoted verbatim" but I'm confused where this actually happened as what I'm seeing is Fram quoting you and offering their interpretation, most of which seem resonable. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(Also multiple ec) Responded above.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Okay I lied, not the only comment as I should address my own behavior there too. The only defense I am going to offer for my own aggressiveness is that this is in the context of a wikidata discussion, where wikidata proponents are advocating (amongst other things), linking to blank wikidata entries, linking to wikidata targets that are unrelated to the article, linking to wikidata living people who don't have an article on ENWP (Wikidata has no BLP policy remember). The softly softly conciliatory approach has been tried for months and months now and its not getting anywhere. Its tiring getting the same unacceptable responses from editors like Ymblanter when these problems are raised. So when you have someone pulling the 'I know better because I have more edits than you and I'm an admin' card, its going to be more than slightly annoying. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  Just to make it clear, I did not advocate blue linking (actually, quite the opposite). I tried to get my point across - that Wikidata is not what most Wikipedia users perceive it to be - and instead of constructive discussion (the only user who managed to discuss it constructively was Beetstra, and I disagree with him, but we did not have any issues) got a bunch of personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any civility problems here. I think Fram's paraphrasing of what you've said is reasonable. @Ymblanter: - you're clearly pissed off and acting in the heat of the moment is always a recipe for doing something you regret (perhaps such as starting this thread). This isn't a criticism; we all do it. Don't retire, but perhaps consider a day off. It won't matter so much after 24 hours. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Clearly a lot of editors in that long Discussion thread are frustrated and irritable, and are discussing editors instead of content. (For some reason Wikidata seems to polarize people and arouse argumentativeness, perhaps because it is still a work-in-progress and there is no universal agreement yet on all of the basics.) All of those doing so need to step back and chill and then return to discussing only content and policies and guidelines, not other editors. If you disagree with someone, there's also no actual need to repeat yourself numerous times, in my opinion. While I don't think it was a great idea for Fram to go to Ymblanter's talkpage (he should probably stay off of Ymblanter's talkpage), I don't see any intentional incivility or gross misrepresentation on his part. As it is, an uninvolved party had to hat some of the ad hominem arguments in that RfC Discussion thread. So I think the soluton is for everyone to henceforth refrain from mentioning other editors and stick to discussing content and policy and guidelines. Don't even use the word "you". Contrary to what someone said above, it is possible to get one's point across civilly if one's arguments are cogent enough. It may be the case that that RfC and its subthreads/subparts are trying to accomplish too much. Possibly some of the subparts will have to be hashed out again in another discussion for further refinement. Softlavender (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

WhiteGuy1850

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

---

• WhiteGuy1850 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User WhiteGuy 1850 continually makes disruptive edit in article Finns, e.g. adding information that Finns speak Swedish. Could someone do something about this? Velivieras (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This looks very much like a content dispute, with the article being a mostly unsourced mish-mash of Finns and Finnish speakers, which are not necessarily the same thing. Please use the article talk page. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Around 5% of Finns speak Swedish as their mother tongue. Kind of similar to Canada and English/French. You may want to revert your edits and apologize. 91.155.192.188 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Ban Snooganssnoogans for disruptive editing and edit warring

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

---

I am trying to improve Immigration to Sweden, but when I was editing the crime section, the user Snooganssnoogans deleted the entire section and replaced it random excerpts remotely related to the issue without first discussing this on the talk page. The section is now 1500 words long (which is longer than any other section about immigration on the entire English Wikipedia). At the same time it manages to leave out the most crucial pieces of information. Things that would be nice to have in order to fulfill WP:NPOV includes

• Perspectives other than the highly politicized and debunked sociology professor Jerzy Sarnecki
• The censoring of new crime statistics
• A general summary of the development of crime which is needed for understanding the arguments.

The way Snooganssnoogans achieve both having a section that is both too long and leave out the relevant information is to discard structure and include irrelevant information.

• Two paragraphs are dedicated to what Donald Trump's view of the situation is. A man who is famous for changing opinion depending on the audience and situation and has probably never even been to Sweden or written a research paper.
• The same information is repeated in the beginning of the article and towards the end (Brå 2005 and Sarnecki 2013)
• Most text is spent giving different perspectives on how immigrants are over represented, but not if you account for socioeconomic factors.

Snooganssnoogans is quite good at posing as a legitimate user, but when you see the history you realize that this user is not trying to improve Wikipedia. It is obvious that he tries to get me to attack him to trigger some personal attack warning.

• First he deleted the section that looked promising and replaced it with this mess and he won't even allow deleting duplicate of information.
• He has falsely accused me for editing warring when trying to get him to argue why he deleted the previous section, and then when I try to improve this section. First time I broke 3RR (although I don't think it applies to mass removal) and now he broke the 3RR rule and he still blame me.
• He won't seriously engage in the talk pages, and when he does he does not try to argue his position and instead try to provoke me.
• He quite successfully tried to side track my RS thread to be about a choice of words instead of the issue[310]
• He openly boasts about provoking other users on his page and his talk page is filled with people trying to engage in serious discussion with him (which is a waste of time) Wikipedia:Civility
• He disrupts any attempt at improving the crime section

If he sees this post, he will likely try to side track it to be about Tino Sanandaji, but don't take the bait. I would like to continue to improve this section, but it is impossible to do so with Snooganssnoogans present and I have demonstrated that he is not a serious user. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

First, I did not violate WP:3RR. Second, Immunmotbluescreen made similar complaints against me 12 days ago [311]. The complaints were as spurious then as they are now. Note that Immunmotbluescreen is doing the same edit warring over essentially the same content as he did 12 days ago. The edits have been rejected by other editors and Immunmotbluescreen's proposed changes have not been approved on the talk page. Immunmotbluescreen's discussions on the talk page are usually just WP:NOTFORUM rants against "sociology" and his desires to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE-style content and sources (self-published books and a PDF released by Sweden's far-right party) to counteract "sociology" (which he believes is a lesser scientific discipline).[312] When the user refers to "sociology", he's talking about the numerous academic publications and dozens of high-quality news outlets that the Wikipedia page under dispute currently uses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have lost count of how many times we have been through this. Serious scientists have debunked Sarnecki[313][314]. If he was a serious scientist instead of an activist, he would be struggling with Statistics 101. It is still the crime section which you have made worse than how it was when we started, but it is a completely different angle which serious editors will notice. As honest editors will notice, no one is against removing Trump or reducing the length of the article. The only thing that is disputed there is whether or not Sanandaji should be included which is a different discussion. No serious editor would exclude the most famous academic on the issue's comments and no serious editor would let one debunked academic decide the picture of an entire country.

Even on this very page he continues with lies and a attempts to side track the discussion. The edits that were discussed did not cover Sarnecki vs Sanandaji, but Trump vs relevance. He will never contribute in positive sense to Wikipedia and disrupts others attempting to improve the articles. Take a look at the edit this liar claims to be about Sanandaji [315]. I have never used a pdf "released by Sweden's far-right party" as a source, it might have been included in section which I was attempting to fix, but it was there before I arrived [316] to the page. That was another lie in your statement. He needs to be banned for his lies and false accusations. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

These personal attacks and BLP violation lead me to suggest WP:BOOMERANG. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A few gems from the article's talk page:

• "The reason why you are against this is because if the views are presented fairly you know that people will dismiss sociology view, and rightly so."
• "The scientific method does not change between different fields. If logic doesn't apply in a field it is likely it's a soft science/pseudoscience."
• "It is also biased as the sociology view is pushed at every opportunity. ... We also know that Sarnecki is wrong and thus should improve the article accordingly to achieve the best outcome. The relationship between low socioeconomic status and violent crime has been questioned by more serious sciences than sociology."

EvergreenFir (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how any of those are attacks and I don't think it is a secret I want to include other views? 1. If he avoids the argument, you might suspect that there is something else behind the editing. 2. That is also a true statement and the statistical methodology is the same regardless of the field. 3. According to WP:IAR even if there was a rule against showing the full picture, which there is not, we can use IAR to override it. I also posted links here from an economist and Psychiatry perspectives. How are they wrong in their arguments? I am not suggesting we should remove the sociology perspective (even if I think it is irrelevant). I simply think it should be complemented. Does the current version seem fair and balanced to you? As Sanandaji is arguing, socioeconomic factors are irrelevant for the question whether or not the immigration has lead to higher crimes since the immigration undeniably have lead to more inequality. To account for fat and carbohydrates when consuming a bag of potato chips does not make the consumption any less healthy. You can't make a problem disappear by accounting for factors. "There were no genocides in the Soviet Union if you account for totalitarian governments" does for example not make any sense. Socioeconomic factors might explain why people commit crime, but says nothing about increase in crime.

It is not a personal attack to call out dishonest editing and lies. Rather, it is the only defense for honest editors.

However this is Sanandaji vs Sarnecki, and not part of his recent edit war. Look at these edits [317]. Do you think Trump should be included?

BLP violation? --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2018 (:::::If

@Immunmotbluescreen: This is not the place for a content dispute (re: Trump). You have a strong POV regarding sociology as a discipline and you've made repeated personal attacks on users (here against Irnya Harpy and a few times in ANI here against Snoo). You've admin shopped ([318], [319]) as well. I don't have time right now to dig further (sorry JzG), but your behavior thus far has been far from ideal. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

PS, your BLP violation was the "statistics 101" comment... EvergreenFir (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I commend a review of the contributions of Immunmotbluescreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This smells of long-dead rat. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I totally agree, as I predicted Sno tried to side track the conversation to be about this. Let's not bring up sociology vs facts and logic here. We can leave it at I, like most people of hard science, don't take sociology seriously, but that this does not show in my article edits. I needed to explain the context to inform you about the situation because of your three out of context quote. As you see the edit that I reported him for, it does not involve Sanandaji and my attempt was an improvement that he blocked. As long as you agree that we should not delete the treatments of Jews in Nazi Germany because if you account for anti-Semitism in society and law, they we were not treated any different, you agree with me on this issue though.

As I have said before, calling out lies and dishonesty does not count as personal attacks. Harpy also falsely blamed me for edits I did not do, change her interpretation about Wikipedia rules depending on the situation and makes preposterous claims about the use of sources. I have never attacked her, only defended myself from her attacks. I asked the administrators to intervene, but they did nothing other than to warn Sno.

@JzG: That is what I am requesting. Take a look at the version history and see that I am making constructive edits and he is not. However, since he is so constantly dishonest, he has lied twice in this very conversation, which is enough for a ban. His own user page breaks every rule in Wikipedia:Civility. Maybe it is too much to ask to review the claim that is pretending to be stupid while making purposefully biased edits so that serious users try to explain to him basic science and logic and eventually are outraged. You can simply ban him for lying and lack of civility. Just a couple of clicks and Wikipedia will automatically get better.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If I disagree with Nazis, I agree with you? WTF?

Your dismissal of an entire academic discipline demonstrates your inability to edit neutrally with respect to it. Your nonsensical comments about Nazis, your repeated personal attacks (don't call other users liars), your denigration of fellow editors, your inability to edit neutrally regarding social sciences ("Let's not bring up sociology vs facts and logic here"), your BLP violations, your apparent admin shopping, your WP:RGW attitude trying to insert your interpretation into articles... I think a t-ban is in the future. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sociology does not have exclusive rights to immigration. Immigration is part of economics as other fields as well, but my personal and quite wide spread opinion of sociology is not relevant for my edits. I have never expressed any opinion about either immigration or Nazis, it simple demonstrate that accounting for factors does not make end results disappear. Accounting for anti-Seminism does not change the fact that Jews were mistreated in Nazi Germany. Accounting for socioeconomic factors does not prove that the level of immigration does not affect crime. That's not taking a side, that is a statement of fact. BLP only applies to articles? I have not written Statistics 101 on his page. WP:RGW does not apply as I using Massutmaning as a source.

Lie - "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive", Liar - "a person who tells lies". Sno wrote "The edits have been rejected by other editors and Immunmotbluescreen's proposed changes have not been approved on the talk page. Immunmotbluescreen's discussions on the talk page are usually just WP:NOTFORUM rants against "sociology" and his desires to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE" The edit in question does not involve Sanandaji [320] and has never been disapproved on the talk page -> Lie 1. "his desires to introduce [...] WP:FRINGE-style content [...] a PDF released by Sweden's far-right party)" The pdf was there before I started editing[321] -> Lie 2. What does that make Sno? At a closer inspection of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, it is not recommended to say it out loud, but to report it do administrators. Technically I did not follow this order, and I suppose I am sorry for not using ANI more often, but now that you know that he is spreading lies it is the administrators job to stop him. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If you don't want to do anything about Sno, how can the section be improved? Honest question. I think you agree with me that it needs to be fixed.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Immunmotbluescreen: This board isn't for discussing content disputes. See WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll bring this dispute there. That leaves his lies and disruptive editing for discussion here. Can we all agree that he is lied on this very page and mislead fellow administrators to engage in an side track discussion about Sanandaji vs Sarnecki that is not relevant, and that this behavior is not allowed? --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

People are giving you a lot of rope, be careful that you don't hang yourself. Snooganssnoogans isn't an Admin. User:NeilN and I are. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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