Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002

Complaint about BlueboyLI

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 copied this from my talk page so I can get some input.

Hi Mvcg66b3r, I need your help in regards of New Jersey based TV station for the primary New York City market. A user goes by the name of User:BlueboyLI has revert my cause I forgot to explain in the edit summary. I revert it back to my version combining your version. Mvcg66b3r, I know you clean up vandalism you warned some vandals for a potential block. Now could you talk to User:BlueboyLI to never revert and vandalize NJ based TV stations for the primary city market. The NJ based stations for the NYC market are WNET (PBS), WWOR-TV (MyNetworkTV), WNJU (Telemundo) and WXTV-DT (Univision). If User:BlueboyLI reverting my edits to the BlueboyLI's version, please revert it to my version and watch the four TV stations foir avoiding another revert this is to avoid edit wars. If BlueboyLI continue reverting, put User:BlueboyLI for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). I will be happy to assist you. Thanks for your consideration. Reply me back ASAP. Thanks and have a great day. 2001:569:7C07:2600:94E6:94DF:A64:37BD (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I know what the IP is saying, but what BlueboyLI is doing is disruptive editing, not vandalism. His edits were probably in good faith, but to see him revert my "good" edits is quite annoying. WP:AIV is not the place, but if this isn't either, maybe someone could send it to the right forum. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, I would try just the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as the matter is not urgent nor protracted. Cheers! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I may have spoke to soon. This might be the place. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r Could you provide diffs of the edits in question? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 03:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: This one [1], just occurred within the last few minutes. Also: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] And why do we have to "explain" every edit? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Mvcg66b3r – It is good practice to always use an edit summary in order to explain your edits. If you don't summarize your edit or provide a reason for edit, it is easy for users to believe that you are not making constructive edits. "Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted incorrectly, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was." From what I see, BlueboyLI explained most of his edits with a concise summary grounded in policy, whereas you generally did not. Edit summaries are a good place to engage in discussion, so as to prevent conflict. Just as communication prevents drama in relationships, so too does it on Wikipedia. Have you engaged in any discussion with BlueboyLI? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I have discussed with Mvcg66b3r both his persistent overlinking and edit warring going back to November 2017, seemingly to no avail. I have copied and pasted from his talk page:

Your edits contain too many overlinks ie: New Jersey is not needed after Newark, New Jersey. Please familiarize yourself with the following information on when to link: MOS:OVERLINKBlueboyLI (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You have consistently reverted my edits without bothering to discuss on the talk page and have the audacity to say I started an edit war. Again: Your edits contain too many overlinks ie: New Jersey is not needed after Newark, New Jersey. Please familiarize yourself with the following information on when to link: MOS:OVERLINK As for leaving out the "class a's" that information is already in the info-box. The lede is meant to be brief, not filled with information that's already linked. BlueboyLI (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

PS I went over this very same topic with you a year ago, and you seem to have learned nothing in the year since.

Why do you keep reverting my edits? They're more in depth. And why do you add stuff only to remove it later? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

   Your edits contain too many overlinks ie: Connecticut is not needed after Hartford, Connecticut. Please familiarize yourself with the following information on when to link [1]BlueboyLI (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said, my edits are more in-depth. Yours are kind of bland. And please don't lecture me with that "overlinking" stuff. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes less is more, esp. when editing lead articles. Your edits lead to reader fatigue with unnecessary redundant links. Other edits are incorrect ie: placing full power stations in the translator field or confusing programming services with networks. BlueboyLI (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

BlueboyLI (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

BlueboyLI (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons for the edits. Reverting edits that were made without explanation are not disruptive and certainly not vandalism. Bringing another editor in to avoid the rules is certainly suspect. I suggest the ip go on the talk pages before arbitrarily making reverts or perhaps the ip can create a user name so we can discuss the matter. BlueboyLI (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no real idea why this is on ANI or even what's being requested here. But most of what I'm seeing is a content dispute. Editors shouldn't call edits vandalism when they're not, but from what I can tell the only thing that really happened was someone mentioned bringing a case to AIV. Likewise while in most cases, editors shouldn't revert just because a change was undiscussed, editors are generally allowed to revert a disputed undiscussed change per WP:BRD. You all need to discuss on the relevant article talk pages and not via reverting and edit summaries. If you can't achieve consensus by yourselves, use some form of dispute resolution. And I said "all". I note that the WNET talk page has not been edited since 2012 really (a single 2016 edit bu the IArchiver bot) [16]. WWOR-TV since 2013 [17] (again a single 2017 edit from the IArchiver bot). So please don't tell us it's the other editor's fault. Whichever editor you are, it's surely your fault. The fact that some of the copied stuff above is from 2017 is further evidence that whatever has gone on here, all of you seem to have failed to use the basic steps of dispute resolution. Brief comments on user talk pages may be okay, but more substantial discussion about article content should either be on the article talk pages or other relevant places (suitable noticeboards etc). Clearly the discussion on the user talk pages are getting no where otherwise you wouldn't all be still at loggerheads over 1 year later. So bring it to the article talk pages or wherever else appropriate and if no one else joins in use some form of dispute resolution to try and attract them (WP:3O, WP:RFC etc). Also remember to keep the discussion focused on what makes the article better in accordance to our guidelines, policies and what the reader would reasonably want. Not alleged wrong doings about who should or shouldn't have made what edit or revert. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I do agree there does seem to be some overlinking going on. I also have zero idea why this was linked above [18] since while possibly the edit summary was unnecessary (it looks to me like it could easily be some sort of accident), the revert was clearly good. Nil Einne (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.

NickH2001

NickH2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has disruptively edited the Walt Disney World Railroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Disneyland Railroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) articles despite four separate warnings over a week's time on his talk page, none of which received a response. He has committed a variety of rule violations, but the main one is WP:TOOMUCH, where he insists on ornamenting the articles with as many trivial, unremarkable pieces of information that he can find (examples: Special:Diff/880288000, Special:Diff/880467062, Special:Diff/881368719).

I should also mention that although this username is less than a month old, and the user claims to be new on his user page, evidence suggests that he has been editing anonymously for years, specifically under Lexington, South Carolina-based mobile IPs starting with 2606:a000:131b (article histories with strong correlations: Admiral Joe Fowler Riverboat, Norfolk and Western Railway class J (1941), The Princess and the Frog, Ralph Breaks the Internet, Southern Railway 722). This same person's disruptive editing affected the Disney train articles years before despite similar warnings (example: User talk:2606:A000:131B:E9:E587:A1F6:499C:2986), and they were given semi-protection to stop him, specifically. I can provide more information on this matter, if requested. The point is that this user is not new and hence is not ignorant in regards to the rules.

The fact that these two Disney train articles are both featured articles means that if his editing is allowed to continue, they could potentially lose this status. I do not want that to happen. Since he's not getting the message, I believe the best course of action is a standard three-day block to make it crystal clear that what he is doing is wrong. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 04:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see much effort at dispute resolution on the relevant talk pages or on NickH2001's talk page beyond the lobbing of warning templates. On the other hand, communication is required. Nick has not responded at all and has not edited since 0320. Perhaps they are asleep. Dlohcierekim talk 06:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't know about knowing rules, and there are just so many to keep track of. (not templenting the regulars is an essay, of course, but never mind.) They may think they are doing a good job. They may be deeply hurt by your assertions. Dlohcierekim talk 06:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: The reason why it's mainly warnings on his talk page is that myself and others have been trying to reason with him for years, but his behavior has hardly changed. As an example, see this historical conversation from 2016 (at that time, he was using the IP 24.88.92.254): Talk:Walt Disney World Railroad/Archive1#Lilly Belle's return. By the way, he has attempted to delete that conversation more than once, most recently in December 2018 here: Special:Diff/874546704. This user doesn't care whether he is doing a good job (i.e.: WP:NOTHERE), or else he would have listened to me by now. Something has to be done if we don't want his poor editing to continue in perpetuity. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 14:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I was asked by Jackdude101 to weigh in here, due to my previous involvement with the article.

I think we have several things going on here, all jamming in together at one time.

Some time back, the article was is pretty bad shape. Articles related to kids' media and articles related to trains both tend to gather extensive piles of unsourced trivia. Articles where those two categories meet (Hello, Thomas!) tend to get even more. I made a quick run at flushing the flotsam and Jackdude put in a good bit of work fleshing out and sourcing what remained -- laudable work that brought the article up to FA status. I don't doubt they very reasonably want to protect the result from heading back to where it was. (It is, however, a train. This article will always come back around. Take 6 months off and you'll find random bits about touching up the paint, when a train was shut down for 30 minutes to clear a track and an attempt to isolate the pitch of the whistle.) Unfortunately, this might tend a bit toward a feeling of ownership.

I don't know if NickH2001 is the IP editor or not. At the moment, I'm not particularly concerned. Semi-protecting a problematic article will either push IPs away or result in registered accounts. If the registered accounts become problematic, we try to work with them, escalating toward blocks if needed. Recurring problems after that are a different issue. Treating NickH as a new editor requires little more than giving them a bit of coaching. If they are the IP editor, they'll might reject that and speed their way to a conclusion. If they are the IP and take some coaching or are a new editor altogether, it works out either way. This is where the article's talk page should come in.

Enthusiastic editors (common to kids' media/Disney/train/etc. articles) do not mix well with editors protecting articles. While their goals (hopefully!) are similar -- a "good" article -- their visions are often at odds. Too often, the enthusiastic editor wants to make large changes and the protecting editor winds up rejecting it all. The enthusiastic editor can feel rejected and the protecting editor can feel attacked. Discussing a large change in that environment is tough. Partializing can be a part of the solution. If the enthusiastic editor is trying to add lots of material and you are blocking all of it, take it to the article's talk page and try to break it down: discuss a piece of the larger addition and why you think it should/should not be included. Is it sourced to an independent reliable source? Is it on topic (i.e., is it possibly encyclopedic, but belong in a different article (about the amusement park, the corporation, small gauge railroads, etc.)?)? Does WP:WEIGHT apply? Should a portion of it be included? Do we need a better/more sources? If both editors discuss the issue, try to resolve their different points of view and use dispute resolution when they can't, the project moves ahead. If one or both editors don't work together in good faith, then we might have cause for someone to break out a mop.

IMO, Jackdude101 and NickH2001 need to break this down on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: NickH2001 responded to the notification of this discussion on his talk page saying that he will refrain from making any more edits to the two articles beyond basic technical edits, such as duplicate links. As long as he sticks to his word, I am satisfied.

I should state for the record that I don't have a problem with him. I have a problem with the addition of unnecessary content regardless of who added it. As User:SummerPhDv2.0 mentioned, these types of articles tend to be jokes from a quality standpoint, and part of my motivation for bringing these articles up to FA status was to prove that there can be exceptions to that rule, and to inspire others to apply similar professional treatments to other similar articles (one example is the Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) article). If there are any other content issues in the future, as suggested, I will bring them up on the related talk pages and encourage him to do the same. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• I was pinged to weigh in here but it seems to be largely resolved. I was involved in the past because I reported another user who was abusively templating the editor's (supposed) former IP with vandalism warnings without actually reporting the user for remedial action, and I believe at the time I called that bitey. I can't really address the content matter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Obvious sock of banned editor Daniel C. Boyer

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.

---

Banned editor Daniel C. Boyer is socking again. Boing said Zebedee blocked one a day or so ago. Today, his extremely obvious sock is disrupting Drawing, and needs to be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've asked for Drawing to be protected as well, since Boyer has form for using multiple socks to try to get his stuff into articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by Boing. Closing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2019 (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.

Unblock request (for another user)

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, Sorry if this is in the wrong place,
Victoria's Angel was blocked due to their previous username (Bhadbhabie) being seen as impersonation of Danielle Bregoli,
They've since renamed however the blocking admin hasn't been on since 4pm UK time and I don't really think it's fair this editor further remains blocked until the blocking admin logs back on so was wondering if they could be unblocked now?,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Unblocked! Thanks for letting us know. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:43, 6 February 2019 (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 Nakon possible wiki break

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 not certain if this is lack of steem but it seems admin Nakon may have gone on a wiki break. Their contributions show that they are occasional contributors but they have not contributed since end of January. They left us messages with CAPTAIN MEDUSA on our request for pending changes rights here Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Pending_changes_reviewer but due to their break, the requests have remain largely unattended to. Also user CAPTAIN MEDUSA left them a message on their talk here [19]] which led me to think it could be a little longer before they return. I was asking if anyone could help look at them while they are on break. Senserely Loved150 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You are required to notify people I have done so for you [[20]] [[21]]. Also, I am not sure this is the correct venue for this report. TelosCricket (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No, this is a perfectly legitimate thing to bring to our attention. @Loved150: Requests handled. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:52, 6 February 2019 (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.

Persistent edit warring and disruptive editing from IP user

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.

---

86.134.62.138 has been edit warring for several days with basically everyone at 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum; they were warned that they were about to violate WP:3RR ([22]), yet they keep reverting others. So far, there have been six reverts within or just outside a single 24-hour period ([23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]), with further reverts outside that period. The user was also warned on their talk page about their behaviour ([29]), but has kept removing those on the (false) grounds that these were "bullying" ([30] [31]), even after they were told that such a removal was not adviseable specially while engaged in an edit war ([32]). I think a block is due already. Impru20^talk 15:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. 209.152.44.202 (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there were two obviously related IPs, 86.134.63.244 and 86.134.62.138, so I blocked the small range 86.134.62.0/23 for 72 hours. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 6 February 2019 (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.

Fred Howe (footballer, born 1912)

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 SPA has added a cut/paste bio from copyrighted source. I have removed it twice and warned on user talk page but the editor has put it back again. Does not appear to be interested in responding/understanding policy. MB 15:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the copyvio text and cleaned the history. The SPA editor has been given a 24-hour block for ignoring the previous warning. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:01, 6 February 2019 (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:Harris Sharyar

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 page looks problematical to me. Masquerades as an article, WP:Advertising WP:Linkspam. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"It is observed that he created the best web-apps and this is how he captures the world."? Deleted per NOTWEBHOST, but could been seen ad spam/advertising as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2019 (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 conflict) er, they haven't been blocked as far as I can see. [33] IDK that one try at an autobio would deserve a block anyway though, maybe... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 23:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove an editor's permissions

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.

---

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

This user has been behaving extremely poorly for one with privileges, and has expressed an intention to use rollback wrongfully. I must therefore propose that it be removed. Let me explain:

He recently replied to a message I left him [34] — Leaving aside the serious incivility ("Are you sick?"), battleground attitude ("Before brandishing your human rights..."), superior tone ("Learn the wikipedia [sic] rules"), belligerence ("What's your bloody problem") and namecalling ("smartass"), there is a serious problem with his approach.

He said: "Every minute a smartass pops up who thinks I can read his mind to undesrtand [sic] the purpose their edits. So my policy is just like this: no edit summary, no self-evident purpose - revert on the spot ... A great time saver."

That is totally unacceptable. No editor has a duty to explain their edits to him. He can't just have a blanket policy of reverting anything he claims not to understand (and his decisiont o target red-linked accounts seems like a WP:BITE issue too). There is no rule that users must use an edit summary so that is no basis for reverting their edits.

If he doesn't understand why an edit has been made, and it is not clearly wrongful (eg. vandalism or spam) then he should reach out to the editor and ask them. He can't just revert on hair trigger, because every editor is accountable for their own edits (including reverts) and if they restore inappropriate content then they are acting wrongly.

A good example from this week is where he used a rollback tool to restore inappropriate WP:WEASEL content into an article (and where he did not, incidentally, yourself provide an edit summary). Even if an editor of his experience genuinely didn't know about WP:WEASEL, clearly this was not an appropriate occasion to revert based on a "red-linked account" policy.

I am accordingly inviting the administrators to remove his advanced permissions (at least rollback) as he is clearly likely to misuse them. Amisom (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It's true that there is no policy requirement that you leave an edit summary, but long-standing community best practice is It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted incorrectly, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. Your complaint that his revert is misplaced, that he should check with an editor before reverting, or that it's somehow incumbent on others to magically intuit the intent and purpose of your edits isn't going to get much traction here. In fact, you're more likely to see a lot of basic agreement with his position and his language, especially since his tone was in direct response to your rather snarky, combative language [35] which you dropped after also dropping a COI template on his page [36]. I'd strongly suggest you drop this complaint, because it's likely to backfire on you, and you're already starting to dance into boomerang territory. Grandpallama (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

He stated he has a personal po,icy of using rollback tools to revert all edits from new accounts on sight if he personally doesn’t understand them (and without seeking to understand them). That’s not OK Amisom (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not what he said. What he said was (italicized emphasis mine) So my policy is just like this: no edit summary, no self-evident purpose - revert on the spot, which is precisely in line with the best practice I quoted. Again, as I said, it's the onus of the editor to provide a reason for edits, not for someone else to seek out a reason, so the attempt to shift accountability for your own edits to someone else is unacceptable. Moreover, a second editor also complained about your misuse of edit summaries around the exact same edit. So I'll say again--you should drop this, and learn from it that you should be including better edit summaries when you remove content. Grandpallama (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Both Amisom and Staszek Lem are acting in uncivilly, but this thread is the wrong way to resolve it. For starters, I can't blame Staszek Lem for responding the way they did; "Maybe next time focus more ont he collaboration and less ont he moral high ground". However, their method of reverting stuff is not the best: Readding NPOV vios because the edit summary is bad is not an excuse. This is as bad as the IPs edit as Staszek didn't leave any rationale either. How are people supposed to know that a person needs an article before they're listed on those sorts of pages? Sure, it might be someone adding their friend, but let's WP:AGF. "Scribe" is a real word, and while it's not correct technically, consider using the AGF Twinkle rollback.

Walk away with this: Amisom, try to not interact with Staszek Lem. Staszek Lem, leave correct edit summaries yourself if you dislike it when other people don't (you only use them 44.3% of the time, not including blank rollback statements). Also, try exercising some good faith. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

And please try to keep civil when engaging other editors, Staszek Lem; the complaint about your behaviour on that talk page was well-justified.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Eh...it was an entirely understandable response because it was provoked by equally bad, if not worse, behavior from the filer. Grandpallama (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Was anyone planning to formally notify Staszek Lem that they are being discussed here? I don't see that any {{ANI-notice}} was placed on their Talk page. This was the responsibility of the filer. General Ization ^Talk 14:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I do now see that Amisom mentioned ANI in the closing of their comments on the editor's Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 15:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

True Amison did mention that they have plans to open a thread at ANI. Nevertheless I posted the ANi notice there, to make it clear that this thread has already been posted, and he should check and respond. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This customer has a very specific understanding of wikipedia guidelines. I have already accepted his edits, done with wrong edit summary " NPOV":

• 11:20, 5 February 2019‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,413 bytes) +4‎ . . (OK, but next time write correct edit summary right away)

And the second edit summary ("As per policy please don’t re add without a source") actually shows that he does know correct policy for this revert. Instead, they decided to apply NPOV, WEASEL, etc. without citing what was exactly npov and weasel. Without specific explanation there can be no discussion, and the only edit summary in such cases is "no it is not NPOV, not WEASEL", and no I cannot prove that something is NOT, if I even do not know what IS, so the onus of proof is on the person who is making positive statements.

But this person found it necessary to come onto me with a trainload of trucks, so my WP:AGF went in smoke right away. Well, in the future when seeing this user name, I will just ignore their antics and go straight to article talk page, where other editors may help do deal with them. Obviously, one-to-one bickering leads to nothing. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Amisom: The diff you provided is not a misuse of rollback. They used Twinkle, which is not a special privilege. We do not revoke permissions for misconduct when the permissions are not involved. In any case, you're so focused on the tone of SL's message to you, you've overlooked the content, which appears to be spot-on. SL reverted without an edit summary, but you made an initial edit without an edit summary ("nah" is not a real explanation for an edit, and you know it). Communication is required. Don't complain about getting reverted when you're failing the basic requirement of communication. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:56, 6 February 2019 (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.

Deletion 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.

---

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.

---

Resolved

Would someone please delete Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cinadon36 a newly created attack page. I can't see a suitable entry at WP:CSD but it is clear the creator (Jazz1972 (talk · contribs)) is in conflict with the target who is an editor in good standing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Y needs more check marks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 deleted I think another is warranted --DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Good close ^Leviv_ich 17:21, 6 February 2019 (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.

Y Endorse heavy-handed humor-policing.[37] ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:43, 6 February 2019 (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 undisclosed paid 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.

---

Dutch IP 195.35.150.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be a single-purpose account here to promote the Dutch company Elemental Water Makers. I removed some spammy material here and warned them about conflict of interest, but they just replaced it in a stealth edit here. Almost certainly a paid editor, but has refused to disclose. --IamNotU (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A highly promotional article Elemental Water Makers was also created and speedy deleted today. Deli nk (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, and an account, User:Animus5393, is apparently also involved, whether or not that's a different person. The IP hasn't exactly refused to disclose; they merely haven't disclosed. You put an {{uw-coi}} template on their page a month ago, IamNotU, very properly, but it's a rather long and complex template. They wouldn't be alone in not reading a whole complicated template like that with full attention, or in missing/choosing to miss the sentence about disclosing a COI. Deli nk has now posted a short sharp note to them which there would be no excuse for not reading or not understanding; but that was only a few hours ago, so we should probably give them a bit more time. If they continue promotional editing without disclosing now, after Deli nk's post, they should be blocked, and the same goes for the account. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 5 February 2019 (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.

DontBlameMe

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.

---

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

The other day I came across a blatantly fake sales certification on a Taylor Swift article, which turned out had been added by DontBlameMe around six months ago. Quickly looking at the user's contributions, it turned out he'd been adding a humongous amount of made-up certifications to boost his favorite singer's receipts: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Not only were the data false, but they were also supported by sources (of course, with no mention of them) to make them look real. The user, who has over 2,600 contribution across the past fourteen months, seems to lack understanding of what Wikipedia is, rather considering it a fansite for Swift, judging by this vandalic edit from two weeks ago. Because of this chronic problematic behavior, I suggest DontBlameMe is completely incompatible with the project. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 12:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Wow. That's egregious. Reviewing the edits, the purported sources very often have absolutely nothing to do with the text they are supposed to support. I have blocked for hoaxing. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 4 February 2019 (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.

2019 Supercars Championship

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.

---

Article has recently been reopened after a week long protection resulting from previous edit warring. Now that is has been reopened, IPs from the same range have resumed edit warring with no attempt to discuss. [43][44] Crick12 (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I have tried a compromise wording which closely mirrors the source and also started discussion on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The range of the IP network is 1.128.0.0/11 - That's much too wide of a range to consider administrative action or blocking (even if we could). I've protected the page for two weeks and for repeated disruptive editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:08, 7 February 2019 (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 on Module:Adjacent stations

Timeline of the Incident

Here is a quick timeline of this event

• On 04:57, 22 January 2019, User:Ythlev edit Module:Adjacent stations without posing anything on talk page, which "breaking numerous other templates in Infobox station" based on User:Pi.1415926535's description. This action has been reverted by User:Pi.1415926535.
• On 09:48, 28 January 2019, User:Ythlev moved Template:Adjacent stations's talk page to Moudle talk:Rail without posing anything on talk page, this has been moved back and forth several time based on edit hisotry, which becomes an edit war
• On 15:19, 29 January 2019, User:Ythlev posted move proposal on talk page and listed the request as Uncontroversial technical requests without gaining any consensus nor discussion prior to the submission of Uncontroversial technical request. Due to the tag of Uncontroversial technical request, User:Anthony Appleyard moved the page by request, which is reverted by User:Pppery on 20:55, 30 January 2019
• On 07:29, 30 January 2019, User:Ythlev edit Template:Adjacent stations in order to test new module, which "broke display everywhere by adding a superfluous 'to'" based on User: Mackensen. The edit has been reverted back by User: Mackensen.
• On 11:54, 30 January 2019, User:Cards84664 mentioned this incident to ANI
• On 13:34, 30 January 2019, User:Ythlev posted their response, which addressing the reason of the change in more detail.
• After that, all discussion is continued in this section on ANI

Above is a rough summary of this incident, please comment whether or not you support or oppose this rename under and please by civil and do not attack each other. If you think this action is disruptive and want further action, please comment under this section. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 22:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Both you and Cards84664 want it to be deleted right now, so what is the point of commenting here? Ythlev (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ythlev:I cannot do anything right now about this. Since I involved in this discussion, I cannot close the discussion by myself. I do agree that it is pointless to have further discussion here and this issue can be go back to the Module's talk page for further discussion at this point.-- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 06:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Continuing Discussion

Ythlev Has been very disruptive with their edits on Module:Adjacent stations. They assumed that they did not need consensus to replace a module that was used on 37,000+ pages. The editor shows WP:OWN editing habits, claiming that any challenges to their editing requires being "convinced". The editor created Module:Rail, then moved Module talk:Adjacent stations to Module talk:Rail with zero discussion beforehand. They later explained that the move was made because another editor moved Module:Adjacent stations/doc to Module:Rail/doc. This was done by Anthony Appleyard because of a request by Ythlev at WP:RMTR. What makes this situation bizarre however, is that Ythlev (created on December 20th) is a publicly declared sockpuppet of Szqecs and Szqecs1. This user did not discuss changing their username at all.

First of all, which point in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS did I satisfy? Ythlev (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think number 6 very slightly via what the OP of this discussion section said WP:OWN. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging second opinions: Mackensen, Redrose64, Johnuniq. Cards84664 (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no discussion on the module's talk page, or attempts to converse with the user in any way. And it looks like they edited the page once, were reverted. Did it again and self reverted shortly after, all on the 22nd Jan and haven't touched it since. Am I missing something? Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

here and here? Cards84664 (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you participate the discussions? Ythlev (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ythlev:Can you please provide a link to the page and/or talk page where a discussion over this change explicitly took place. If you are referring to those two links that User:Cards84664 stated, as an active discussion then there is a problem. Those two pages do not have any active discussions at all; a page with an active discussion is considered to have your intended change stated, plus at least two opinions of two different users(WHO ARE NOT ALTS) agreeing or disagreeing with the intended change that you stated. So please provide the links to the page and/or talk page that you are stating to have a "discussions" about this intended change of yours. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: Plus two opinions of two different users? Then there is not such a discussion. Where is it written that edits should have discussions meeting that requirement? If it were a policy, then the module should never have been created. It was a two-man project and barely anyone talked about it even after it going live. Ythlev (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please explain (for those of us who are not up with the latest technology) whether this change has any visible effect on the way articles are presented to readers? If not then it simply doesn't matter - let's just toss a coin to decide which way it should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

In theory, no, but it's unclear to everyone who isn't Ythlev what the actual plan is--to rename the module, to break up its functionality, or what. It's frustrating. For a module with this many invocations I think there's a reasonable expectation that major changes will be discussed beforehand or at least explained in some detail. Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Which I already did: Module talk:Rail#January 2019 changes. Ythlev (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

After everyone shouted, and you're continuing to avoid answering the questions that have been put to you. This is incredibly disruptive. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That is why I am leaning towards #6 in the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, that User:Ythlev provided. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

And again, Ythlev has only been "Ythlev" since December 20th, they started a new account for no given reason that I can find. Cards84664 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cards84664:The fact that they created another account is troublesome enough. If the user in question is found to be using this account for disruptive editing, then the user is actually violating the [[45]] and as well is doing the "Good hand" and "bad hand" violation that is listed in that section of the linked page. However only a check user would be able to verify that, plus even before that we have to make sure that what the user is doing on the account questioned is actually disruptive editing or another form of rule braking. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

They explicitly mentioned the old "alt" accounts on their user page, if you didn't already see that. Cards84664 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

There are exceptions to the no alt rule, but it requires doing a process or something like that. It is on the same page linked in my reply to you previously. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I created this account for the legitimate use clean start under a new name. For those accusing me of good hand bad hand, which account is the bad hand? And what does something like that mean? If you are not familiar with the rules, how can you accuse others of breaking them? Ythlev (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I never explicitly stated that you are 100% doing bad hand with your "Ythlev" account, all I did say was that if your actions that you did on this account if considered by the community at a future time (everyone is catching zzzzZZZzzzZZ right now mostly currently in my opinion), consider your edits disruptive and rule breaking, then your "Ythlev" account would be considered "bad hand". Also I would like to let you know that I clearly understood the "good-hand" and "bad-hand" thing, (a sock puppet has a account for doing good things... and a account for doing bad things). I am sorry that I did not look at any of your edit history on the other two accounts of yours to see if there were any active edits. I really am sorry, if I had looked maybe I would not have stated anything about sockpuppetry. Sorry.  :( Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

About the ownership accusation, have I stopped anyone from editing or reverting my edits? Ythlev (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like the type of proposal that should have been discussed at the Village pump and a consensus determined there. I think this needs to stop or be undone until it has been discussed at the village pump.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

When I created this module I certainly didn't go to no village pump. Again, where is this requirement written? Ythlev (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Requesting comments from users on whether the actions and behavior of Ythlev is considered disruptive/rule breaking

It seems that at this point that what the actions of "Ythlev" the community would consider to be called could have many different outcomes ranging from nothing to a possible warning(s) sockpuppetry sanctions. The latter being due to the fact that the user stated on their account that the account in question is an alt account with no reason stated. Also from the creation of this alt account of theirs to the time of the reporting of the incident has only been doing edits to the page that is being talked about in the main section of this discussion, thus the user could be doing a "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts. If the community ends up considering the actions of the Ythlev account being disruptive and rule breaking I suggest a warning(s) on all accounts that the user owns. sockpuppetry investigation. Otherwise if the community decides that this is not rule breaking or disruptive then just leave it alone. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

About the alt account, I didn't know you had to state a reason, and if I knew you could just change username, I would have. I am not avoiding scrutiny, and I thought declaring the alts was obvious enough but apparently people go the extra mile for hall monitoring. Ythlev (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ythlev:See my response to one of your responses above. Sorry for the mishap. Sorry.  :( However a warning sanction is possible still if actions are considered disruptive. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ythlev: I don't think there has to be a reason or whatever for a name change either. My understanding is basically it's fine if you weren't "in trouble" (under restrictions/block or whatever) when you switched accs. I don't see why that would be a problem. Especially if you haven't concurrently been editing with both accounts and since you disclosed them right up, it sounds like you did everything by the book, and talk of sanctions for that seems kind of unreasonable to me... just my thoughts :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 08:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. It's disruptive. It needs to stop.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Making any changes to to anything which affects 37k pages without discussion is often reckless. When someone disagrees with your change then this proves it almost definitely was reckless. This applies even if there is eventual consensus for your change. BRD doesn't work very well when you're dealing with 37k pages. And you should always be able to justify any significant changes you make i.e. explain why they make wikipedia better. If you can't or have no actual plan then this is generally disruptive. So a double whammy here really.

  I would mention though that clearly and properly disclosed alternative accounts are normally okay. I mean I'm not saying they can never be a problem, but editors don't really need an important reason, nor do they have to ask anyone before making one. If an editor just wanted a rename but didn't know it was possible it's even clearer it's fine. Editors limited to one account due to some sanction are an obvious exception.

  BTW, this isn't a WP:CLEANSTART as normally meant here on wikipedia. A cleanstart is when you intentionally don't link the two accounts publicly. (You may choose to do so privately to arbcom or similar.) You also generally shouldn't be editing the same or similar articles, and especially not straight after you retired your old account. (Personally I also feel that anyone trying to do a clean start should also wait at least 6 months from retiring before editing again, but this isn't a real requirement.)

  This doesn't mean the new account was wrong, as I said it seems fine and in fact it's better than a clean start. While creating a new account even properly disclosed is always likely to lead to heightened scrutiny especially if you get into problems, a clean start is even worse due to the lack of disclosure. My point is simply that referring to it as a clean start may cause confusion.

  Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Refer to this section. I brought it up before. Ythlev (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• This really just needs to go back to the talk page, and everyone needs to stop discussion about how the edits pissed them off. Ythlev would probably do good to stop trying to claim the high road as well, as there seems to be animosity by all parties that is preventing a real discussion, and no one is as clean as the driven snow here. Go back and start over. This really isn't an ANI issue quite yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think people complaining about simple edits on the original module. People are moving the discussion here because User:Ythlev decides to redirect the module and its talk page to their new module without gaining consensus, and their editing actually break all the page. I was extremly confusion at the first glance since the Infobox station templates also been indicated to be part of the Moudle:Rail, but no code in the template shows that. Since I am currently transitation all the rail station infobox template to the Infobox station on the Chinese Wikipedia, the mentioning on the doc really cause confusion. I do think ANI is the right place to discuss this issue since Module:Adjacent stations is on more than 37,000 page and redirect without consensus is violating the guideline. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 23:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Ythlev did the same with Template:Sidebar Adjacent stations. They added documentation linking it to Module:Rail, then they moved the template to Template:Sidebar Rail. This has since been reverted, but afterwards Ythlev created it again here. Their template currently lists all of the components of Module:Adjacent stations as "Currently uses old version". This leads me to believe that Ythlev is planning on ignoring consensus as soon as the arguments die down. Cards84664 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Dennis Brown:, this is the reason why these users come to ANI for complaining about this incident. It is not just simple edit, but are actions like moving the whole module, its talk page and its docs to Module:Rail without consensus, rewrote the whole module without consensus and break everything, and saying everything on Template:Sidebar Adjacent stations is part of Module:Rail without consensus. Since Adjacent stations is part of Infobox stations, the template and module are linked to more than 37k pages, and without any discussion and consensus before moving pages is complete unacceptable. User:Ythlev says that they mentioned that the template should be redesigned. However, non of words in that section indicated that there will be a redesign to take over the current template. User:Ythlev also says that they get consensus in this section response, but in reality that they only give less than twelve hours before submitting doc move and the frequent reverts of User:Ythlev have prove that there is no Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus been established. User:Ythlev says that they is "open to being convinced", which is not what Wikipedia:Consensus works. User:Ythlev should instead address others concerns (For example, what will the move affect the look, is it support or features), which they failed to do. Being bold should be cautious when dealing with high use templates based on guideline. By moving pages without consensus and break thousands of page is a template vandalism. User:Ythlev is doing disruptive editing, due to 5:the failure of not engage in consensus building and 6:rejects or ignores community input.I urge the administrators to take appropriate action about this incident. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 23:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: I don't know that this issue is here prematurely; Ythlev isn't listening to people's feedback and has tried to fork the module again, despite an obvious lack of consensus. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mackensen:If what you are saying is true, and if you can show a diff, link to a page log, or a link to a page that proves that Ythlev is still doing this without consensus, then this does count as disruptive behavior. Sanctions to User:Ythlev then are possible because the user is obviously not listening to the discussion that is taking place here, and is avoiding to do any consensus. So can you please provide the links or the proof. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold:@Dennis Brown: Are you seriously still considering sanctioning me? As far as consensus goes, there has never been opposition to re-structuring the code of Module:Adjacent stations. And a user who 'strongly opposed' my code now proposes to use it before I am even out of this mess. The 'fork the module again' mentioned above refers to editing Module:Rail, which was not used by any live templates. It is now not even used by sandbox templates and the code has been deleted. Basically Cards84664 and Mackensen won't even let me test anything related to the module, which if I'm not mistaken, is against Wikipedia policy. I haven't touched Module:Rail since. Must this thread continue when it is obvious that this report is a malicious attack out of spite and paranoia? Ythlev (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Also, after quick examine the original code in Module:Rail that User:Ythlev propose for change, I strongly oppose the move to the new code. The new code do not have enough comments for others to understand, the definition of each word is everywhere rather than concentrate on the top like the current version. This creates difficult for people like me who love to translate module and templates to other wikipedia. Also, the p.convert function in the new code is exactly the same as the current version. I am currently concerning that the new version do not cover all the exception exist in the old version due to the lack explanation from the other. @Ythlev:, I do suggest you to add enough comments in your code, do the same thing as the current version by creating a Internationalization table at the top for people to do easy translation and explain what you have changed or redo in detail (like I use AA than BB in the XX function of the current version. BB is CC, which is faster or better than the current version) before suggestion for edit. Also, due to the exact same function name in most of the function in both version, I would suggest you to just submit a edit request on the current version rather than the new one in order to preserve the edit history. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 01:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@VulpesVulpes825: Module:Rail has been redirected to Module:Adjacent stations, and the Module:Rail redirect has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD. Cards84664 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown:, I do think User:Ythlev's version is a good idea despite a lack of discussion before editing after further re-examine the code with test cases provided. I have currently start a new discussion in the Module's page and I think the discussion here is no longer necessary since the discussion before my comments is keeping criticizing about the change of username rather than actually talking about whether or not the change is necessary. If possible, please close the discussion so people can focus on what is important -- improve the Module and Template. I also do think it is necessary of renaming the module name to Rail since the module have templates like line color, which does not associated with Adjacent Stations. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 06:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If you think it should be renamed, why did you comment that it should be speedily deleted? Ythlev (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You crossed it out. Never mind. Can you not make comments in bold before looking into things first? You are not any less confusing than me. Ythlev (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• As I stated on my talk page: Have an RFC. Admin can't block an editor for editing against consensus if you can't demonstrate there IS a consensus. Via WP:BRD, revert back to stable, and instantly start the RFC. If he is smart, he will leave it at the stable version while the RFC is going on. Then everyone live with the results of the RFC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Constant unsourced additions from Trin5ty even after being warned several times.

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 in question: Trin5ty

This user has constantly made unsourced additions and change images of tropical cyclone for quite a long time now. Those edits are reverted by other users, however after a couple of days the user made the same edits. The user has done that for around half a year. I think the user wants to keep its prefer image, which is an infraction of WP:ILIKEIT. Examples of unsourced changes includes [46], and [47], however there are a lot more examples that I haven't listed here. Examples of image changes includes [48], [49], [50], and [51], however the user made a lot more similar edits. These examples shows that the user is not giving up trying to keep its prefer images. In the user's talk page, the user has received multiple warnings from making those edits, however the user persists on doing it anyways. Trin5ty has already been blocked once for persistently making unsourced edit. Due to all of these evidences, I think the user is WP:NOTHERE. INeedSupport ^:3 16:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indef; been here 2 years, with a mile-long talk page with a host of problems, and they've made zero user talk page edits. Hard to understand how they got away with this for so long. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2019 (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.

I.P User:137.59.223.23

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.P user has been changing the spelling of names in Bollywood movie related articles on/off since the 19th January this year. I've lost count of the reverts needed. Sample diffs: diff diff diff diff

They've been warned three times, which includes a final warning, yet they haven't taken the advice onboard. There have been gaps up to 12 days in the I.P's contribs, so a standard 24hr block won't be much use. I'm hoping for a block longer than 288 hours to be applied. Thanks, Cesdeva ^(talk) 21:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The diffs that you give above are all for one name, and it seems that the spelling "Shahrukh Khan"[52] is used at least as often as "Shah Rukh Khan"[53]. Wouldn't it be better to talk about this with that editor rather than throw warnings around and bring this content dispute here? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

There have been other name changes, but yes the majority are for Shah Rukh Khan. The i.p editor has never engaged in discussion on his talk page, despite a world of opportunity and a good length of time. No warnings were 'thrown', they have been progressive and spaced. The title of the article is Shah Rukh Khan, so until new consensus is sort on the WP:COMMONNAME, the i.p is being distruptive (and also linking to redirects). Pinging User:Bollyjeff who may have an opinion too. Cesdeva ^(talk) 22:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

An editor going against the standing consensus and failing to discuss with other editors is something that ends up here all the time. Turning direct links into redirect links is not constructive editing. It's easy to dismiss this when you aren't having to perform multiple reverts every time this editor goes on a spree.

When an editor completely fails to enter discussion, applying a temporary block to make the editor realise that their actions are WP:NOTHERE is a reasonable action. Maybe then this i.p will engage in discussion. Cesdeva ^(talk) 00:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the subject prefers his name in the three word form, which is actually discussed and cited in the article. Changing it for no good reason is not constructive editing. Bollyjeff | talk 02:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 24 hours for disruptive editing. I'm hoping that this will be what's needed in order to get this user to stop, read the warnings that are left on their talk page, and discuss things properly if they disagree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:09, 7 February 2019 (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.

RTG: Annoying image on 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.

---

RTG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being discussed elsewhere, but I would like to address one small issue without repeating what has been said elsewhere.

As I explained at User talk:RTG#Annoying talk page image he has an image that is unscrollable and covers part of the text. This is especially annoying when I edit with a palmtop that has a small screen and it takes up most of the page, but I find it to be distracting and annoying on any device.

I asked him to make it an ordinary image, with predictable results. Can anything be done about this? It's a small thing, so "suck it up and live with the annoyance" is a perfectly acceptable answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Suck it up and live with the annoyance, I'd say. Guy, this really seems like poking them with a stick, particularly since you first brought this to his attention while he was already worked up about a different dispute you were involved in. In addition, I've seen many people with non-scrolling images that cover part of the text of their talk page, so let's not come down hard on someone who is already feeling attacked when we aren't enforcing it with any uniformity. For an extra-special level of introspection, how would you feel if I decided this was definitely a waste of time, and archived it right now? Because I think that's how he was feeling at the time you brought this up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have Adblocker, or equivalent, then just block it if it's bothering you. Canterbury Tail talk 20:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree. Guy, just for context, I've never seen RTG on the project before today, and yet despite this I was fully prepared to go straight to the extreme position of proposing a three month boomerang block for them earlier, following their fourth consecutive edit representing an effort to edit war with an admin to reverse the a close/post close comment action said close, during that meltdown that transpired first on VPP and then here at ANI above. That is to say, before Davey did them the favour (that they will probably never appreciate) of removing their last comment, thus saving then from facing that discussion (which I think would have been one of the most quickly endorsed sanctions in the history of ANI, they were so far out of line. So you can hopefully see from the above that I'm quite willing to view this user as disruptive in the extreme. But even with that context underpinning things, I still 100% endorse what Floque's perspective on this: this is not the proper context and, however good-faith your motivation, this is about as productive in this moment in time as kicking a hornet's nest right after it's fallen in a community garden. I don't doubt there's a lot in terms of problematic behaviour that is going to have to be addressed here, but perhaps we could do it in a way that's a bit less painful for all involved? Snow ^{let's rap} 20:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You can add [style*="position:fixed"] {position:relative!important} to your common.css, that should do the trick. Paradoctor (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks! and here I was all ready to thanks everyone for the advice, suck it up, and live with the annoyance (smile). Now if only there was some CSS that would hide any post that hijacks an unrelated discussion in order to root for team red[54] or team blue[55]... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• FYI, WP:SMI is the relevant guide. Anything that artificially restricts or obscures text/neccessary parts of the display can be fixed by any editor - even on another's user/talkpage. While on a normal PC/screen, this is not an issue due to display size, floating pictures like the one on their talkpage that obscure text certainly are covered by this where it has a noticable impact. Given the switch to more mobile/tablet etc devices, this is a bigger issue (in general) on them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The above close says "I don't believe there's any policy that forbids it" but WP:SMI is quite clear: "CSS and other formatting codes that disrupt the MediaWiki interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable, may be removed or remedied by any user." User:Davey2010, please self-revert your close so that this can be discussed.

Regarding "letting the user be" is that the message that we want to send? That for ordinary editors following WP:SMI is required, but if you call several other editors serial killers, psychopaths, mass murderers, a "rouge[sic] cabal", extremely bitter perpetrators and sharks (who for some unknown reason are attracted to sparks instead of blood), that makes you exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else? And that calling people all of those names means that we cannot even discuss the violation of WP:SMI? Hey I want to be above those annoying rules too. Who do I need to insult? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What I did was compare myself to a mass murder with a distinction to a serial killer. Yes, cabalism, and/or grouping up to exert force on extremely short notice, is pretty much predatory. Guy, you posted up one of these psycho examinations of Donald Trump on Jimbo Wales talk page. I replied at length, without very much style, but with a real attempt at depth to closet doing that as a reversely effective measure, which has caused the problem it proposes to solve by proposing to solve it in the same way, when it was only a proposal of a problem at the time (I blame them for getting him the vote by doing that in the first place actually). And It's been a couple of years since I posted in a major forum on WP, so I ranted on a bit about politics and the media, to no particular response, then went off to do something else. Something else turned out to be suggesting not allowing the refdesk to be voted out like that again for the forseeable future. I said stuff like, if the refdesk is dying let it die. So some editor came along shortly after I posted and templated it closed. I reverted this. Mr Macon appointed himself at this point as the leader of a new cabal and has simply not realised yet that he has advertised it to the whole site by following me around. Who said, my talk page got 1,500 hits in one day over it. I haven't been so "angry"(angry?) in years. Who was it that said, ~ R.T.G 12:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Electroreception. It's what they see, and if you didn't know that I assure you you will find many interesting things about shark physiology, and if you do, you can move on to pterodactyls. Sharks are the most efficient living machine on the planet, but alas, not much more than a machine to be had there. It was an accusation. I'm done. ~ R.T.G 12:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sharks are way out there in terms of senses and physiology. The article says may, but as I recall the technology has already been put to plastic and used in surgical rooms. ~ R.T.G 13:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Done - I was only made aware of SMI after OfD made their comment but I didn't want to reopen this based on how much of a timesink this had become, That being said If I'm asked to reopen a thread I will do so but I'm not exactly thrilled about it, It is what it is I guess. –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Dlohcierekim & The Rambling Man - Just a note I though Guy was an admin hence why i opened this, Had I known they wasn't I wouldn't of reopened so sorry about that. –Davey2010^Talk 13:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC))

Probably the user has more important things to deal with right now. So let the user be. And I think Guy as the wrong person to address this matter and did so at the wrong time. Not sure why this was reopened, but there it is. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! According to a literal reading of SMI, I could have just edited his page to remove the floating image rather than discussing it here, but that would amount to throwing rocks at a hornet's nest.

BTW, he is still editing with a battlefield mentality.[56] I would advise giving him more time to see if he calms down and stops, but the future does not look promising. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You are canvassing a war on me again. I've responded to all the accusations, and that's what this whole thing is about. I didn't seek out nobody about this fighting and stuff, except to request an admin for help here at ANI way after it really was an incident. ~ R.T.G 18:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Until two days ago, this user talk page was averaging four hits per day. It's received around 1500 hits over the last two days, thus increasing the annoyed audience by a factor of 375. Perhaps this thread should have remained closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• (ec with TRM) Ping Winged Blades of Godric who yesterday did just edit RTG's page to remove the floating image. Floquenbeam reverted him.

I agree that the image should be removed, per WP:SMI, but I'm not going to do it myself as at this point I think it would constitute wheel-warring. On my mobile device the floating image obstructs a significant amount of text (see File:RTG user talk screenshot 20190206.png) and makes the page difficult to use. I respect Floq's drive to swat the hornets away from RTG's talk page but we shouldn't be making exceptions to usability guidelines just because a user has a persecution complex. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the image should be removed as well, but I think that's of lesser import right now. Maybe the user ill feel more amenable once the Gestalt has cooled. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Look, before this I had no real call to review it. Your implication that people cannot proceed without my calming down is sort of made in my absence here. It's not the case. This is about my looking for a discussion and finding a fight, and it is being portrayed as my looking for a fight and finding a discussion, but this insistence hasn't been accepted yet. (I've answered them all, even this. Is there anything wrong with this response pls before I find another J'Accuse?) ~ R.T.G 18:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Gah. I hate all floating images. Regrettably, he ain't the only one. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@RTG:What I was trying to say was maybe if people stopped pissing you off you wouldn't be pissed off. Sorry if I pissed you off further. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim:Honestly, that is all I've got to go on here. I'm just putting myself out in case accusation turns to my not being interested in or capable of resolve, as that's what the intention of the previous accusations was about. No sweat o/ ~ R.T.G 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Floquenbeam got it right back near the top--Suck it up and live with the annoyance, I'd say. Guy, this really seems like poking them with a stick, particularly since you first brought this to his attention while he was already worked up about a different dispute you were involved in. In addition, I've seen many people with non-scrolling images that cover part of the text of their talk page, so let's not come down hard on someone who is already feeling attacked when we aren't enforcing it with any uniformity. For an extra-special level of introspection, how would you feel if I decided this was definitely a waste of time, and archived it right now? Because I think that's how he was feeling at the time you brought this up. Do we really need action on this at this moment? Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• WP:SMI does not say this image needs to be removed. It is mildly annoying, yes. It obstructs some text, yes. But it isn't pretending to be a new messages bar or obstructing the edit button (that kind of things is what we have SMI for). Being annoying is allowed. Just ignore it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Nobody needs to ping me to this thread anymore; I stand by everything I said above, and do not wish to spend any more time arguing. If there's consensus here to remove it, then remove it. If there isn't, then don't. I vote "don't". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• I was not informed this discussion was reopened just as I was not informed when the discussion and request closures which sparked this problem were done. ~ R.T.G 18:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• So just delete it then. That seems to be the standard thing for me now. Why ask? Why debate it at all? ~ R.T.G 18:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just so my intentions are clear, I still consider "suck it up and live with the annoyance" to be a perfectly acceptable answer. "you aren't even allowed to discuss this, even though there is a guideline that seems to prohibit it", not so much. I am fine with what appears to me to be a "no consensus for removal" result while at the same time being disappointed with the "abuse other editors. That way you will be exempt at least some of our policies and guidelines" attitude I am seeing. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The statement about exemption can have no other target than me, and therefore accuses me directly of abuse, followed by an accusation of following a philosophy of "abuse other editors". ~ R.T.G 16:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• My solution was to delete the thing in Preview, but of course not Save. That would allow reading without the obstruction. And I'm sure the monkey enjoys the brief respite. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2019 (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 has been adding uncited content for 2 years; blocked 3 and 6 months for it but is still doing it

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.

---

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

Has been doing little else than adding uncited content for the two years he's been on Wikipedia. Blocked 3 months, and then 6 months. Has a talkpage with warnings about it from at least four different people, including two recent ones from me, but he's still at it again despite reversions and warnings. I don't know what his trip is but he needs to be stopped -- needs another long-term block. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It's block evasion by 174.105.188.178. I blocked for a year. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for figuring that out, NinjaRobotPirate. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

How does extending the active block on the original IP help when the person behind it is already using a different IP? Seems like a punitive rather than preventive block to me and you are probably punishing someone other than the intended target. 2600:1003:B848:6031:4573:D57F:511B:2E44 (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

They blocked the current IP for a year; the original IP was already blocked 2yr. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 10:17, 8 February 2019 (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.

Wikihounding and IP hopping from anonymous user

An anymous user (67.1.112.110) is engaged in wikihounding. He appeared suddenly on February 2 and 100% of this editors' contributions involved following and reverting my recent edits. I have had no prior interaction with this editor that I'm aware of that would have triggered this behaviour, nor have I had disputes with any editor. The edit summaries gave a variety of largely misleading reasons for the reverts, as seen below. Note that IP address is in Tucson, AZ.

67.1.112.110

• [57] - "adds nothing"
• [58] - "self promotion"
• [59] - "claims must be referenced" despite proper source/citation
• [60]
• [61] - properly sourced edit reverted as "biased inuendo"
• [62] - bogus claims not mentioned in citations restored as "NOT bogus" despite absolutely no verification by cited sources. This seems to be the edit that triggered the anonymous editor's behaviour, as far as I can tell.

User was advised to disengage the confrontational behaviour: [63]

On Feb 4, what appears to be bthe same anonymous user reapperaed under IP address 67.1.216.242. This editor also appeared out of nowhere and initially targeted only my edits:

• [64] - standard CE mischaracterized as "vandalism"
• [65] - good faith edit mischaracterized as "disruptive nonsense"
• [66] - properly sourced edit reverted as "vandalism and moral attacks upon subject"

Note that this address is also in Tucson, AZ. I have no doubt both IP's are the same editor.

Looks like pretty clear wikihounding. User has made no attempt at discussion or dispute resolution. Note that at least one article was targeted by both IP's. I'd like an admin to intervene, as a warning was previously issued and not heeded. The fact that this user is also IP hopping also indicates deception and lack of good faith. SolarFlash (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked the most recent IP, though they've been active dynamically on IPs on a very large range. If they think this is "valid and useful info" they're clearly trolling, and if that doesn't establish their motive then this certainly does. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There may be connections to this account and this IP as well as this one. Probably more will turn up. SolarFlash (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

SolarFlash, I did some investigating and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Laibwart on your behalf. Feel free to add any comments you may have there as well. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

MattLongCT, much appreciated. I'll take a look at the SPI when I get a minute. SolarFlash (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

SF - Also keep a list of the IP addresses in your sandbox. You can use this to build a rangeblock request, if needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

These are the confirmed IP addresses associated with this user that I've been able to compile so far. The editing patterns are identical and all have been utilized for unconstructive edits and little else. Note that repeated attempts (over a period of almost five years!) to smear the subject of the Jeff Rense article using bogus or non-existent citations seems to be a principal motivation of every IP on the list; I'm amazed nothing's ever been done about this:

• 67.1.98.69
• 67.1.104.210
• 67.1.106.208
• 67.1.108.109
• 67.1.112.110
• 67.1.116.112
• 67.1.128.151
• 67.1.132.85
• 67.1.132.156
• 67.1.136.109
• 67.1.136.131
• 67.1.139.227
• 67.1.142.253
• 67.1.146.126
• 67.1.148.228
• 67.1.154.195
• 67.1.156.196
• 67.1.192.179
• 67.1.198.189
• 67.1.204.98
• 67.1.205.15
• 67.1.206.59
• 67.1.206.174
• 67.1.208.51
• 67.1.216.242
• 67.1.226.74
• 67.1.228.165
• 67.1.231.138
• 67.1.238.83
• 67.1.239.133
• 67.1.241.152
• 67.1.249.187
• 67.1.253.53

If anyone wants to think about applying a range block, start with this. SolarFlash (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• CheckingDlohcierekim talk 13:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  67.1.98.69/16Dlohcierekim talk 14:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector blocked 67.1.216.242. The closest I got to a range was 67.1.216.242/17. A lot of CIR edits, but too broad and collateral damage as well. Perhaps one of the many users more experienced than I.Dlohcierekim talk 14:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Of the several IP's contributions I looked at from the list above, only one was recent, and most were several years old. A range block is not appropriate here. For this ISP, single IP blocks, lasting for at least a week - a month being entirely appropriate - are the way to go here. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

67.1.216.242 and 67.1.112.110 are the two responsible for the recent problems. I'd like to see those two blocked for a month and then deal with any additional issues as they arise. SolarFlash (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It took a while but he's back. This time the IP is still from the same block Special:Contributions/67.1.3.8 and the editing pattern is identical. SolarFlash (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Figure skating edits

I've asked someone dozens of times (leaving comments in edits summaries + talk pages) to stop

• needlessly abbreviating (e.g. changing 2018-19 to 18-19 when the results table only covers one season)
• needlessly widening results tables by removing abbreviations of event names in cases where they're clearly useful in keeping the table narrow and easier to read
• changing names of events or re-arranging the order of results in a way that doesn't make sense (moving Junior Worlds below Youth Olympics even though the Youth Olympics are for younger skaters and the International Skating Union considers it less important).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marjorie_Lajoie&type=revision&diff=857318882&oldid=857298820
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marjorie_Lajoie&type=revision&diff=872642579&oldid=872602844
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marjorie_Lajoie&type=revision&diff=877406989&oldid=875120042
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marjorie_Lajoie&type=revision&diff=878684967&oldid=878684671

This user has also repeatedly removed content without explanation.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alysa_Liu&type=revision&diff=879454199&oldid=879454177
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ting_Cui&type=revision&diff=871169676&oldid=871140777
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_Shcherbakova&type=revision&diff=881615366&oldid=881602700
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petr_Gumennik&type=revision&diff=881616843&oldid=881566439

I've left comments in edit summaries as well as on these talk pages.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skater0000
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:5.148.112.148

He or she completely ignores my comments. Even if I leave a hundred more comments, there's no sign that this user will read or take them into consideration. I think that the above users and the one below (and possibly others) may be the same person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.10.42.166

Hergilei (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• This concerns Skater0000 (talk · contribs) who has made over 730 edits since August 2018, mostly in articles, a few in drafts, and none on talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Where have you tried talking to the other editor, Hergilei, on user talk pages or article talk pages? Comments in edit summaries (which are probably not seen) and template warnings don't count as discussion. Your comments might not be ignored if they are personal comments directed to an editor on a talk page which are focused on problem-solving, not just messages to come to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I left messages not only in edit summaries but also these user talk pages:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skater0000
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:5.148.112.148

Hergilei (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hergilei - I see that you've left messages on Skater0000's user talk page regarding the user's editing and formatting here, here, and here, but all in the month of October 2018. You left this user an unrelated message on January 10, 2019 (and of course, an ANI notice of this discussion the other day), but nothing since October 2018 and in regards to this topic area... I think that you should leave an escalated warning on their talk page that includes a summary of the user's issues and a link to the relevant policy or guideline page that outlines the way things should be vs what they're doing. Ask the user to please respond and work with you to sort this out.

You also messaged the 5.148.112.148 IP user (diffs: 1, 2, 3) in September and October of 2018 - again, I don't consider these messages recent enough to merit that any action is necessary. You did leave two messages (diffs: 1, 2) on the user's talk page on 25 January 2019 (which I would consider a recent attempt at discussing the matter), but nothing else other than edit summaries, which (as Liz stated above) does not count as any kind of discussion or attempt to come to a consensus or resolution. You have left no messages or communicated at all with 92.10.42.166.

You also left those recent messages on the talk page of 5.148.112.148 with the assumption that Hergilei and this IP user are the same person. You also make this assumption here - how do you know for 100% certain that Hergilei, the IP user (5.148.112.148), and the IP user (92.10.42.166) are all the same person? Can you please provide diffs from anywhere that explicitly state or prove without a doubt that they're the same person? If you can't do so, then we obviously can't make that assumption. Accusations, implications, or assumptions like this must have proof. Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming they're all the same person because of the strong similarity in the types of edits they choose to make:

• removing results from the National section (with no explanation)
• removing clarifications such as "Advanced" for novice (the clarification is needed because there are several levels of novice)
• removing abbreviations which help keep the table narrow
• changing Gardena to Egna

• moving Junior Worlds below Youth Olympics

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luc_Economides&diff=prev&oldid=881642685
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_Shcherbakova&type=revision&diff=881905220&oldid=881632142
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_Shcherbakova&type=revision&diff=881615366&oldid=881602700
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_Shcherbakova&type=revision&diff=880604097&oldid=880182535
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Siao_Him_Fa&type=revision&diff=882039425&oldid=880838028
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Siao_Him_Fa&type=revision&diff=880603993&oldid=880267544
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Siao_Him_Fa&type=revision&diff=876265043&oldid=876186459
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Siao_Him_Fa&type=revision&diff=875106700&oldid=874217449
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Siao_Him_Fa&type=revision&diff=872701654&oldid=872653435
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Siao_Him_Fa&type=revision&diff=871885740&oldid=869077109
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuhana_Yokoi&diff=prev&oldid=881899106
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaori_Sakamoto&diff=prev&oldid=875054936
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rika_Kihira&diff=prev&oldid=875054992
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rika_Kihira&diff=prev&oldid=881640656
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wakaba_Higuchi&diff=prev&oldid=875055215
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexia_Paganini&type=revision&diff=879798266&oldid=879798197
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizaveta_Nugumanova&diff=prev&oldid=875052443
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koshiro_Shimada&diff=prev&oldid=872701399
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petr_Gumennik&diff=prev&oldid=872701168

Hergilei (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear stealth canvassing by User:Fredrick eagles

This section was originally merged by Levivich, however I think this clear evidence of off-wiki canvassing needs to be addressed separately. This report says that AFDs were advertised in Twitter by users active here. Is it normal? If not, why is this advertisement left untouched? Having gone through the Twitter links, I've added my own subsection. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Awful contribution

I have to address awesome contribution in AFD of Sepideh_Gholian which I nominated for deletion because due to People notable for only one event , she is not notable, in fact the event -Haft Tappeh workers protest- is. So why do users devoted pages to Ali Nejati, Esmail Bakhshi and Sepideh Gholian. In addition, subject are not supported by RS and Independent sources. There are some points:

• First, it seems to take place the Wikipedia:Canvassing in social media and some one [[REDACTED - Oshwah] twitted]
• Second, user with just 4 edits or 15 edits (in English wikipedia) participated in AFD of Sepideh_Gholian
• Third, other users confirm that a Propaganda is appearing
• Finally Fredrick eagles reverts heavy material without source or RS.

I have to say that such as adventures is happening in Ali Nejati. Some one by this [[REDACTED - Oshwah] twitt] call other to vote.

Please check AFD of this and this Saff V. (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I have tagged the AFD to remind editors that it is WP:NOTAVOTE, but instead strength of argument which applies. If you believe there are potential sock or meat puppets, then I suggest you raise a report at WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 11:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Saff V., I suppose you meant to write awful rather than awesome in your heading. I've taken the freedom of changing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your Immediate response, at this moment I am finding [[REDACTED - Oshwah] another twiit] which was written by [REDACTED - Oshwah] and User:Ladsgroup commented that we have to report pov issue for Saff V. by informing the Office! Saff V. (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This should probably be merged with the previous report regarding POV-pushing by Saff V., since the source in question in the previous report is a significant component in the AfD discussion mentioned in this report. Grandpallama (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This AFD is also being subjected to off wiki canvassing, such as at [REDACTED - Oshwah] Canterbury Tail talk 13:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The tweet is {{tq|{{lang-fa| [REDACTED - Oshwah]}}.}} followed by a link to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sepideh_Gholian and four twitter handles (@[REDACTED - Oshwah]), which [[REDACTED - Oshwah] Google translates] to: If you believe that Wikipedia's English page has the necessary criteria for not removing, then leave a comment on this page. Use the same syntax that I used ([REDACTED - Oshwah])). ^Leviv_ich 02:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yep, that's a comical AfD. HeShe is almost certainly notable, but I reckon that nine Keep !votes in a row without any of them being of value may well be a record. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Nejati (where the same problem is occurring) might be a different question, though - it does smack a bit of WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  This is she --Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Whoops, thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Saff V.’s edits are reminiscent of the the report against Pahlevun below. Both editors seem quite involved in POV-pushing concerning political activists against the government of Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Don't accuse me POV issue without representing document.What connection is between edits of me and Pahlevun? Admis can check my edits, I always try to respect to rules by citing material with RS and avoiding OR.Saff V. (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

When I nominated Sepideh Gholian and Ali Nejati for AFD, [[user:[REDACTED - Oshwah]]] called other users in twitter (I released links of twits above):If you believe that Wikipedia's English page has the necessary criteria for not removing, then leave a comment on this page. Use the same syntax that I used ([REDACTED - Oshwah])).Every one can check the history and history and see the result of metacanvassing!As well as He is keeping canvassing in Gholian AFD BY THIS COMMENT:"Thank you. Gharouni and Jayron please also take a look at This AfD on Ali Nejati that Saff V. has created. He is intent on deleting Nejati's page but is incapable of providing any rational reason for it." such as Obvious canvassing!

In other hand, these articles ( Sepideh Gholian and Ali Nejati and Esmail Bakhshi) are full of material with fringe source (such as instagrag, youtube and ...) or without source. I removed some of them (here, 2,3 and I explaned in tp but User:Fredrick eagles with any reason in summary or TP or providing RS, reverted them more and more in in this article and Bakhshi. Are not they serious pov issue from Fredrick? Also we have in WP:AFDFORMAT that Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely be blocked indefinitely All in All I asked serious decision for such violation and propaganda.The quality of wikipedia article should be protected.Saff V. (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: and @Canterbury Tail:, Can I ask you review user:Fredrick eagles's contribution that I reported some of them above as well as his PA on me (hysteric and the brute force of the state apparatus of a shia theocracy! Regards. Saff V. (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Why the twitter account (@[REDACTED - Oshwah]) belongs to User:[REDACTED - Oshwah]

The community has rejected this type of sleuthing. A canvassing notice has been placed on the AfD page. That is enough to warn the closing admin, who will surely ignore the canvassed votes. To be clear, don't discuss editors' off-wiki activities on Wikipedia. Whatever they do on this site is fair game for discussion. Whatever they do on other sites is not. If you feel there has been off-wiki malfeasance, privately email an administrator or ArbCom. Thank you. And, to any editor who's been soliciting meat puppets on Twitter, I suggest you stop, because you risk being banned from Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 12:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's clear and already detailed. See the twitter comment: {{tq|{{lang-fa|[REDACTED - Oshwah]}}.}} [[REDACTED - Oshwah] Google translates]: If you believe that Wikipedia's English page has the necessary criteria for not removing, then leave a comment on this page. Use the same syntax that I used ([REDACTED - Oshwah])). @[REDACTED - Oshwah] is instructing others to contribute to AFDs using the "syntax"es he, i.e. User:[REDACTED - Oshwah], [[REDACTED - Oshwah] used in one the AFDs]. This is clearly an inappropriate notification. Should the user go without any warnings/actions? --Mhhossein talk 18:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Unless you can prove for certain that the twitter account and the Wikipedia editor in question are one and the same then no. The AFD closer (I would imagine, in this case, it would be an administrator) will be able to discern/discount any clearly canvassed meatpuppet votes. Fish+Karate 10:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Hi and thanks for the response Fish and karate. How can it be proved for certain? I mean what more is needed to prove they're the same...You can see the twitter account is referring to his account in WP.--Mhhossein talk 16:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Until and unless the Wikipedia account refers to the Twitter account as being his, then as Fae says, you are running the risk of WP:OUTING a user. Fish+Karate 09:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC) This is attempting to out a user! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC) This appears to be a deliberate attempt at doxxing or outing a Wikipedia contributor's off-wiki social media accounts. My understanding of policy is that this is strictly forbidden, and speculating about accounts on-wiki is normally considered harassment. Unless the editor has voluntarily chosen to connect these accounts on-wiki, not only is there nothing to do here, but this section should be revision deleted for privacy concerns. --Fæ (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC) @Fish and karate: The twitter account is certainly connected to the Wiki account in question. See [[REDACTED - Oshwah] this tweet] where the account is saying his creation, i.e. [[:fa:[REDACTED - Oshwah]]], was nominated for deletion. [[REDACTED - Oshwah] Here], he talks about having completed and rewritten 90% of Esmail Bakhshi. In [[REDACTED - Oshwah] this one] he talks about editing Ali Nejati. [[REDACTED - Oshwah] This one] announces that Sepideh Gholian is under construction by him. [[REDACTED - Oshwah] Here] he talks about having edited [[:fa:[REDACTED - Oshwah]]]. There are certainly more tweets in this regard. @Fæ: Having done such a clear canvassing, the user will not "voluntarily chosen to connect these accounts on-wiki". I think you're too optimistic here. "doxxing or outing a Wikipedia contributor's off-wiki social media accounts"!!! He's already advertised many of his works/edits. --Mhhossein talk 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC) So, Fæ, [[REDACTED - Oshwah] is this your account?], where canvassing also seems to have gone on? Just asking - could be an impersonator. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC) This may be something Iranian, but the Twitter terminology in the previous sections made me cringe sometimes. A small lecture: in English, the platform is Twitter, a post is a tweet, and a twit is what "retarded" persons are sometimes called. So please don't use twit. Just don't... --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 'Twit', commonly used in the UK, is never used for 'retarded' which is mainly an American insult. If a Brit is calling you a twit, it means they think you are being foolish or a bit stupid. Its a lesser form of 'idiot'. If someone calls you 'retarded' they are stating you are mentally deficient. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Yes, you are correct. By adding external links to a user's off-wiki social media accounts (even if it's not true) is an attempt at outing another user and is absolutely against policy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC) If a Twitter account engaging in blatant canvassing states their wiki username it is certainly *not* outing to discuss the twitter accounts actions on-wiki. It may not be true, the twitter account may be lying, but refusing to even discuss it (where the wiki account is actively engaged in the discussions where the twitter account is urging others to follow their lead) is condoning and aiding off-wiki canvassing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC) The following tweets, which are unrelated to [REDACTED - Oshwah], may be relevant to the general stmt by OID above regarding twitter accounts: [[REDACTED - Oshwah] tweet by twitter user A], [[REDACTED - Oshwah] tweet by twitter user B]. Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC) That is not correct. It's considered an attempt to out another user if you provide a link on Wikipedia to an external website containing any off-wiki information, identification, or data about somebody and say, "this is User:Such-and-such" (or anything like that) and if the user has not made the external link to the website provided, or the personal information it provides, public - even if it turns out to not be true. It's a violation of policy and is handled and redacted as such. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC) @Jehochman: I was not talking about any AFDs. The user in question is making off-wiki canvassing which needs to be considered given the links I provided. @Fish and karate: Do you also think the discussion should be closed despite the new links? --Mhhossein talk 12:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC) @Jehochman: it isn't true that the closing admin would necessarily spot canvassed !votes. In particular, it is not true if the people who have been canvassed are in any case frequent contributors to en-WP. You'll note my comment to Fae above, which occurred not long before your close. I realise that might be construed as thread hijacking but where do you propose I should post it? And if not at all, why not? - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2019 (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.

• Upperclass Twitter of the Year EEng 22:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Swansboro, North Carolina

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.

---

Someone using the range Special:Contributions/2606:A000:F8C5:CA00:0:0:0:0/64 has been causing disruption by adding excessive occupations to film and TV biographies. The person started last September, and very quickly the range was blocked for a week by Widr. Other blocks have been placed on individual IP addresses, for instance on 2606:A000:F8C5:CA00:25C5:7110:4E0E:ED59 a month ago. Can we get another rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked one month. Katie^talk 12:45, 9 February 2019 (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, COI, sock or meat puppeting at several biographies

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.

---

• Shakir Qasmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Waheed Zafar Qasmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zahir Qasmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shiraz Qasmi (talk · contribs)
• ShirazQ (talk · contribs)
• Pcheeku (talk · contribs)

Edit warring on vanity bios by multiple apparently related accounts. Perhaps blocks or page protection needed. See also [67]. 2601:188:180:1481:2C:5F1F:6A04:8E55 (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I encourage any passerby CheckUser to look into this. Pcheeku is similar to Tcheeku, an account blocked in 2016. Based on the sheer number of edits at Waheed Zafar Qasmi, it seems pretty likely there's a sock/meat campaign going on here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Please, blocks on both [68]. No mistake, using both accounts disruptively. 2601:188:180:1481:2C:5F1F:6A04:8E55 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2019 (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.

Surmeetjones

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.

---

Disruptive editing by Surmeetjones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Probably a sock of Martinvito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Like the other socks they add unsourced perpetrators to terrorism-related articles and sometimes make up terrorist motives when the sources say that the motives are unknown.

• Adding an item as a terrorist attack when the source says that the motive is unknown and adding "Islamists" as perps on another item without a source.
• Changing the perpetrators in the attack they added
• Adding unsourced perps

Warned on January 20 and several times when editing under other user names. Sjö (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Does indeed look like a sock to me. WP:DUCK. similar types of edits and topics as the banned account. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding the reluctance to block this user. The sockpuppet investigation has been up for more than two weeks and this report hasn't yet led to a block. This is a persistent sockmaster, and I fully expect to encounter him again. Please advise how I should report him in the future to get a quicker result. Should I include more diffs? Should I report him as a vandal instead, since his edits seem to fit with WP:VANDTYPES (as hoaxing vandalism or "including adding plausible misinformation")? Sjö (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the Surmeetjones account for having similar edits to Sundeepnor and Martinvito per the evidence in the relevant SPI report and have updated the SPI case. The network range comes back as 2a02:2121:200::/39 when I run only the IP users listed in the SPI, and as a network range of 2a02:2120::/30 in the WHOIS when I run it. The /30 range is out of the question; it's too wide and with too many unrelated edits to consider blocking due to collateral damage. However, I'm not opposed to blocking the 2a02:2121:200::/39 range if such related disruption continues. I decided to hold off, since no edits have been made by this range since January 19 of this year. If things do pick up from that range, file another ANI report and link to this one or let me know on my user talk page (you'll also want to link me to this ANI and the SPI so that I remember... haha). Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 7 February 2019 (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 by Jazz1972

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.

---

Jazz1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in Disruptive editing in some Cyprus-related articles recently.

He has been active in Cyprus crisis (1955–64) where he has been re-inserting POV templates to some sections [69] His edits were reverted reverted once (by TU-nor), re-inserted, reverted twice (by me), re-inserted again, removed for a third time, re-inserted, removed, re-inserted. removed by IamNotU, re-inserted, removed, re-inserted. There has been a discussion in the Talk Page, where Jazz1972, me and 2 other users participated. The basic problem of the discussion is that Jazz1972 has not been listening. His first (and major argument) was to ask "Can anyone here name me those 103 villages?" [70] Dispite explaining to him that there is no need to dig to primary sources to find the names of the 103 villages, dispite the fact that primary sources have been presented [71] he agrues without any evidence that there are some problems with the Primary Source. What is more frustrating though, is his constant accusation that the rest of users, besides him, are POV pushers and we have managed to expel the good npov users (one example out of many: Chronic team work on enforcing this propaganda POV narrative, is constantly taking place by anti-Greek-Cypriot POV users and admins. All NPOV users have been chronically banned, while all the POV ones, are chronically immuned.Jazz1972 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2019 [72] or we are engaging doublespeak. The phrase War is peace ignorance is strength is repeated 3 times [73],[74],[75]

The same pattern, but definitely less intense, is repeated in the EOKA article. removing, the same info again and again. He has resorted to the Talk Page where he presents no evidence, but again repeats the POV and doublespeak accusations: So you don't even know who were the presidents of the three parties in Cyprus, while you are pushing the turkish goverment's propaganda POV, everyday, all day long about Cyprus.? You can imagine my shock!!!! Lol!!!! Speaking for POV, the king of it. War is peace ignorance is strength...Lol!!! Of course I have. Do you really think that is a difficult task, to give sources about this....?Jazz1972 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[76]

At the article of Cyprus. Removing once twice, third time

Worth noting that this is not the first time he speaks of NPOV and POV users. In October 2018: You do not have a single clue about the case, and you are repeating the turkish side's fanatical war propaganda, that was debunked by the turkish officials themselves. You are a very poor POV user, that incites hatred against Greek Cypriots and a victimhood culture in Turkish Cypriots. If you want to improve start reading non propaganda and non turkish sources and stop being a fanatic. Don't expect to respong to this ludicrus comments of yours, if you don't come with NPOV comments and don't expect to pass this pretending a soft way to do it, like you are doing in your second response. You are making it even more ludicrus like thatJazz1972 (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC),[77] an incidence that probably I should have reported but I let it go. I wont do the same mistake again. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It is the opposite that is happening. Cinadon36 is deleting all the NPOV information in all related articles about Cyprus and team working with other anti-Greek Cypriot users in order to enforce total propaganda narratives and have any NPOV users banned. He is doing it for a very long time. He is already banned for a long period in the Greek version of Wikipedia, for his actions. He is vandalizing all NPOV information and wants to enforce the turksih goverment's POV propaganda. Even his user name is the one that is plotting against Sparta. I will soon prepare a full report on what he is doing, with all the history behind it. If I see my account to get banned in a team work, I will have to react, since this is happening for a very long time, with literally all NPOV users, in Cyprus related matters.Jazz1972 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've indented your comment. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Jazz1972, Cinadon36 has provided edits that support his charges against you for disruptive editing. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims that other editors are trying to enforce total propaganda narratives and have any NPOV users banned? Because otherwise, they qualify as unsubstantiated personal attacks and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• In the past couple of weeks I've been trying, with little success, to help resolve the situation in Cyprus crisis (1955–64). I won't comment on the content dispute, but I'm concerned that the level of personal attacks from Jazz1972 has crossed the line. Here I'm accused of criminal hate speech: incitment of total hatred against a whole race of people, based on propaganda and lies Special:Diff/881905578/882034345. The irony is that I haven't even edited the article, apart from a revert where Jazz1972 had removed large sections of it with no explanation, plus some simple cleanup.[78] Jazz1972 was blocked once already by Acroterion for personal attacks, but it seems to have made no impact. --IamNotU (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been trying, with little success, to help resolve the situation in Cyprus crisis (1955–64) – I'd say you're 55 years too late. EEng 11:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Jazz1972, please explain to us the concept of NPOV. What is a NPOV(Neutral Point Of View)? What is the Neutral Point of View in Cyprus crisis (1955–64)? Please refrain from accusing others when answering these questions. There might or might not be a time for that, later(with all due civility, of course).Lurking shadow (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Jazz1972 is continuing a nationalist campaign against consensus, and appears to have learned nothing from the block I imposed for personal attacks. Based on the comments above: Cinadon36 is deleting all the NPOV information in all related articles about Cyprus and team working with other anti-Greek Cypriot users in order to enforce total propaganda narratives and have any NPOV users banned. He is doing it for a very long time. He is already banned for a long period in the Greek version of Wikipedia, for his actions. He is vandalizing all NPOV information and wants to enforce the turksih goverment's POV propaganda. Even his user name is the one that is plotting against Sparta. I will soon prepare a full report on what he is doing, with all the history behind it. If I see my account to get banned in a team work, I will have to react, since this is happening for a very long time, with literally all NPOV users, in Cyprus related matters. I'm blocking for a month for resumed personal attacks and nationalist POV-warring against consensus. This is Jazz1972's last chance, the next block will be indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2019 (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.

Quartertoten

• Quartertoten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brian Desmond Hurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A Letter from Ulster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quartertoten has been edit warring on these articles for a little while now. After he got blocked for breaking 3RR, he slowed down enough that he's only making at most two reverts per day. This is still disruptive. There's been discussion on one of the talk pages, and a few of us have expressed opposition to what we see as original research. Quartertoten doesn't see things that way and has accused us of vandalism. He's been warned before about calling other editors vandals. I'd like an uninvolved admin to look this over and decide if another block is necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Very disappointing to find this entry about myself. I have been editing pages for 10 years and have never encountered this sort approach that some users employ to supress information that is important context on an entry. Unfortunately a small number of users over a number months have suddenly entered the pages referred to above and deleted a large section opinionated commentary and/or vague assertions. Some users were more helpful and in response the section in question has been rechecked and is factually correct. Furthermore some additional source material has been added by me in the hope that this recurring deletion will stop and I repeatedly urge users to contribute, with precision, any factual errors (which I will review and correct, if appropriate)to the talk pages and allow the section to be developed. The conduct of some users is very sad to see and Hurst deserves better. The point about vandalism is interesting but poorly positioned above as I have not called any user a vandal (so the point above is incorrect) however I have suggested that the act of deleting a large section on a wiki page without any substantive comment or without first using the talk pages (as I repeatedly urge) is effectively vandalism as it goes against the spirit of wiki. I too would like to involve an admin as the section is relevant, factual, sourced and vital to the context of the life of Hurst and should remain and evolve via discussion on the talk pages and the recurring deletion should stop. I am prepared to devote whatever time and hours is necessary to evolve this section using factually correct information to ensure that the entry on Hurst is correct. Thank you to any users who take the time to read this positioning and attempt to rebalance the previous point above.Quartertoten (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quartertoten - I have a few things to say in response to this ANI discussion started by NinjaRobotPirate, and your response made here:

• You're repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth manner on Brian Desmond Hurst and A Letter from Ulster, and in place of following proper dispute resolution protocol and discussing the dispute on the articles' talk pages as you should be doing. You are engaging in edit warring on these two articles, plain and simple. Forget about 3RR; it's a bright-line rule that's defined simply to "create a line" for users who need one. 3RR simply means that if users violate it, will almost always be considered edit warring and the involved users subject to administrative action (i.e. blocking), and those actions are almost always considered appropriate by the community. Edit warring does not mean that 3RR is being violated; violating 3RR means that you're edit warring. There are exceptions to 3RR that, if made, aren't considered edit warring, but this is a content dispute between the two articles and doesn't apply here. I've fully protected both pages in order to stop the reverts and edit warring, and direct everyone involved to discuss the matter on the articles' talk pages. Please participate and appropriately and civilly comment, respond, and help these disputes come to a positive and peaceful consensus or resolution. Stop the reverting. Stop the edit warring... seriously. Following the warning and previous block placed on your account in January of this year for edit warring, you were warned for edit warring again on February 5, and you have reverted those two articles numerous times since then. The only reason I didn't block you was because you responded to this ANI discussion here, and I felt that there might be a possibility that my respose to you here could stop the disruption as opposed to applying your second block. Please follow the policies I've linked here, and please follow protocol and resolve the disputes the right way... :-)
• You don't have to directly say, "Oshwah's edit here is vandalism" in order to accuse someone of engaging in vandalism. If you say, "This edit removes a bunch of content and I think that this is a form of vandalism" - If the edits were made by Oshwah (I'm using myself as the mule as an example) it's still indirectly accusing the user who made those edits of engaging in vandalism. Please understand this. While we're on the subject of speaking about these edits you believe are forms of vandalism, I'll correct you by stating that the edits you describe are actually good faith removals of content. I actually didn't need to review the edits in-depth to make that determination. Aside from experience, I don't need to because we assume that edits are made in good faith by default. Unless they're explicit or blatant beyond question, we don't use "vandalism" to describe the edits by other users. Please remember that Vandalism is the intentional, malicious, and purposeful modification of articles and content with the intention of causing damage to the encyclopedia... and the edits are not vandalism.
• Your statement, "Hurst deserves better" concerns me a bit, here... When I see users who say these kinds of things about an article subject, it usually means that the user has a strong point of view regarding the article subject, or there's something between you two that draws into question possible conflicts of interest or other things that I won't bring up here. This would possibly explain the reverts and edit warring, the long-term issues described here regarding the addition of original research and unreferenced content, as well as your particular response here... I'm not going to accuse you of anything, but that statement in your response here... it's alarming. And I believe that you understand why...

Stop edit warring; if it continues or it happens again, you will be blocked from editing and without further warning. Discuss the disputes on the articles' talk pages, review what is and is not vandalism before you make those kinds of statements again, and please reflect upon the conflict of interest guidelines and your personal points of view regarding the article subject, because something's not right, here.... Thanks. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Well said, Oshwah, as always. Did anyone mention the possibility of WP:OWN per User:Quartertoten#Articles predominantly written by this user. With all due (and considerable) respect, it might be time to step back and gain some perspective. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and you will see that I try very hard to engage people through the talk pages but rather than do that some users just repeatedly delete the section and then encourare others to do the same and it seems unfair that the deletion prevails as the page is now locked down without the section. Please be assured that I am trying really hard to encourage people to develop and build the section and spent all this morning writing this even more referenced and contextualised section which I would like to propose is inserted and encourage people to review and only revert with specific fact or correction:

Woah! No need to paste it here! Just discuss it on the article's talk page; add it there. lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

==Conflict on film legacy== The case for Hurst being the greatest UK film director in the genre of 'conflict on film' is set out in Theirs is the Glory. Arnhem, Hurst and Conflict on Film which showed why Hurst, as a trained artist, "was an enigma, but a master of the genre, and at his very best when focusing on the subject of conflict on the vast canvas of film". Brian Desmond Hurst's conflict films chronicle four decades of conflict from the 1920s to the 1950s: Ourselves Alone (1936)- about the 1920's conflict in Ireland. The Lion Has Wings (1939- jointly with Michael Powell)- about conflict at the end of the 1930s and 'preparing the nation for the war ahead and the vital role of the RAF' A Call For Arms (1940)which is 'A rallying call for war production and more women to work in the factories.' Miss Grant Goes to the Door (1940)which is about 'preparing, but not alarming, the nation for an invasion by Germany.' Dangerous Moonlight (1941)which is about 'the fall of Poland and how her airmen came to the rescue of Britain' A Letter From Ulster (1942)which shows you need to 'treat your allies well'. Theirs is the Glory (1946)which is 'the definitive film on Arnhem; it will remain the veterans lasting tribute to their comrades that did not return.' Malta Story (1953) which is about the 'isolated island of Malta in the Second World War ... and ...how we spend ourselves for the common good'. Simba (1955)about 'Kenya,the Mau Mau and the end of colonial rule... and...you must makefriends with these people, as otherwise you'll findyourself not fighting a few thousand fanatics, but five million angry people. The Black Tent (1956) which is about the the Second World War in the North African desert and 'a brother's loss and his adventure to find the truth'. In terms of Hurst's status amongst the greatest of the UK film directors on the genre of conflict three of the four directors honoured by the Directors Guild of Great Britain under their blue plaque scheme According to Imdb (the internet film database) David Lean's conflict film output includes In Which we Serve (1942) The Bridge On the River Kwai (1957) and Lawrence of Arabia (1962). From the same source, Michael Powell's conflict film output includes the following conflict films: The Spy in Black (1939 -jointly with Emeic Pressberger) The Lion Has Wings (1939 jointly with Brian Desmond Hurst) An Airman's Letter to His Mother (1941) 49th Parallel (1942- jointly with Emeic Pressberger) One of Our Aircraft Is Missing (1942-jointly with Emeic Pressberger) The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp(1943-jointly with Emeic Pressberger ) The Volunteer (1943-jointly with Emeic Pressberger) A Matter of Life and Death (1946 - jointly with Emeic Pressberger) The Small Back Room(1949- jointly with Emeic Pressberger) The Battle of the River Plate (1956-jointly with Emeic Pressberger) Ill Met by Moonlight (1957- jointly with Emeic Pressberger) References

Ok got that. Thanks (but the random deletes and one word inputs has been disappointing to have to deal with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartertoten (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Both pages have now been fully protected for a week, following continued edit-warring. Flapjacktastic (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing on Muhsin ibn Ali's 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.

---

One user, Tufail.jan (who I will notify about this discussion), has been performing edits on the page of Muhsin ibn Ali. His edits have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, but he continues to make the same (or very similar) edits on the page that multiple other users have removed. He has been warned multiple times not to edit-war and to use the talk page instead, but he apparently refuses to do so. Many users have told Tufail.jan that his edits were not constructive (in the page edit history as well as on his own talk page), but he continues to make these unconstructively edit the page, despite multiple editors undoing his edits. I would appreciate it if an administrator(s) could possible prevent that user from further such edits. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Tufail.jan has written why they did it on their talk page. I gave them a note on how to proceed instead, and told them why that course of action isn't helpful. I hope that helps.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've left the user a message on their user talk page regarding their edits and the discussion here. I'm hoping that this is all that's needed. If it continues, please say so or let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:24, 7 February 2019 (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.

Update: The user edited the article yet again and after the messages and notices have been left. I've left the user an edit warring notice (the "softer-wording" version) on his/her talk page in response. If the edits continue and I'm notified, I'm afraid that a block will be justified. Looking back on this user's talk page, they've been talked to nicely, offered help, and politely asked to stop enough times. Enough needs to be enough at some point. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Rejs12345

Rejs12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the past four months, Rejs12345 (talk · contribs) has been engaged in edit wars involving automotive articles. He has persistently attempted to make the Fiat Freemont redirect a full article by copying and pasting information from the Dodge Journey article (the Freemont is merely a rebadge of the Journey). More recently, he instigated an edit war on the Fiat Punto article by copying and pasting information from the Fiat Grande Punto article (the Grande Punto is the third generation of the Punto). Sending warnings on Rejs12345's talk page is futile, as he does not respond to them and continue to make his dubious edits.

In my opinion, Rejs12345 should be given some time out so he will learn how to properly edit articles here. - Areaseven (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Areaseven Make sure you inform Rejs12345 on their talk page using {{subst:ANI-notice}} Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The Fiat Freemont redirect has been fully protected due to edit warring and content disputes. I've also fully protected the Fiat Punto for two days due to the edit warring. I see that Rejs12345 was given a warning for edit warring and 3RR on February 4 by Areaseven; I'm glad Areaseven did this, as I typically don't consider any kind of administrative action for edit warring violations unless the user was warned beforehand and continued despite having it given to them. Since being warned, the user made another revert to the article on February 5. Unfortunately, more than a day has elapsed and the user hasn't edited Wikipedia since then - a block being placed right now would be for an issue that would be considered stale, and would most likely be ineffective since edit warring blocks typically start with a duration of 24 hours. If the user doesn't edit again until after tomorrow, they would only know that they were blocked if they read their user talk page and saw the block notice (and given what's been stated, it sounds like the user doesn't even bother to read the notices that are left for them there). We need to wait until this user is causing additional disruption so that action can be taken and while it's current and in-progress at that time. Else, the user won't feel any "pinch" or "nudge" from the block and the inability to edit, and this problem will only just continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems this user is persistent on trying to get certain vehicles separate articles in favor of redirects. They sent me a message today on my Talk page requesting not to "remove" the page, to which I advised the user to copy the content into the draftspace title of the same name (I am still waiting to see if they've read my reply). The only problem I see is their persistence in the improper request for unprotection of Fiat Freemont, which as Oshwah stated was fully protected to prevent edit warring, which this user was involved in. If anything, I'd also advise the user be familiar with the draftspace and the AfC process and the user not overwrite redirects for a while. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Two days ago Rejs12345 posted a plea to have protection removed, so that they could expand the redirects to full articles, on multiple talk pages including Fiat Freemont, Dodge Journey, Fiat Grande Punto, and Range Rover Vogue - I probably missed a few. Today, within the past few hours, they forum-shopped the same plea to my talk page and the pages of the other admins who imposed the protection. I would say this is not a case of “stale” activity; the user has not given up their disruptive attempts to expand those articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Editor with ties to Russian government

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.

---

Basim dj1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Watch from 7:55 in this link (use link below). New York Times claimed that this user was connected to the Russian Government, with loads of evidence. According to the source, he had pictures in Commons in Russian, and that the car that they used was from its military. Plus, in the Al-Tanf (US base) page that he created, (there is another page with the name about the area)he wrote a bunch of stuff that obviously was directed to the US. Would anyone like to possibly find out if there are more socks connected or if we should block the user and/or request stewards to check the Russian Wikipedia? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is an Updated link. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The article has since changed before the user created it, with no more Russian POV, but I feel like it may have done much more damage on other wikis or by using socks. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

First, this editor made 34 edits in November 2017 (and 2 in December 2017). So, she/he isn't exactly prolific or active. Their edits should be checked out for promoting a Russian POV but is this an urgent problem?

Second, just assuming for the moment that the editor's edits are seen as adequate, are we going to disqualify any editor who has ties to a government? Because we have editors who work for the U.S. government (and probably other nations as well), should we assume they have an inherent COI promoting their nations? I think that it's helpful that the NYTimes put this editor on our radar so we can check them out for a possible COI but I think we need to judge an editor based on their edits, not take the word of even a reliable source like the NYTimes to be an indication that an inactive editor needs an immediate block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen the diffs? The editor claimed that the US was helping terrorists, and that the Syrian Army were ‘armed gangs’, using biased Russian refs. Plus, he wrote the whole article in 3 edits, the first one adding the most information, with complete refs. How is that possible?

As you said, the user itself isn’t that much of a problem, since it can be blocked easily, but the main problem is if there are more of these accounts spreading the Russian POV. We should probably just block. The IP could, however, be looked into more to see if there are other socks also promoting the same thing. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Liz, I am pretty sure I have ties to state government if that counts for anything. Either way, what I think Oshawott 12 meant to say was the editor is being accused of being a part of a government-funded and coordinated disinformation campaign. That's slightly different than a simple intern like me. However, I do not think a ban is the right answer. If we ban the user, then we will have a harder time finding others. I suggest we keep the user under monitoring to see what they do next (if they do anything at all). ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The association to the Russian government is that the user appears to be Russian military or more likely a contractor, and if the uploaded pictures are genuinely theirs, they've been on the ground in rather sensitive areas. That said, working for a government in a certain capacity does not necessarily imply being part of another capacity, such as an orchestrated influence effort. The user's edit are clearly from a Russian perspective but such views are not only the product of specific and targeted craft, they are common and pervasive across the Russian cultural sphere. It may very well be that the user is simply contributing his or her (heavily slanted) 'knowledge' in their free time and not as part of a specific program. Working for a government, adversarial or not, should not be grounds for automatic blocks or COI suspicions. Plenty of editors work for the U.S. government and yet are not paid to spread U.S. perspectives, though such perspectives obviously inform editor biases (just like working in a given industry or sector). In this specific case it is the introduction of POV which needs to be monitored, and warnings and blocks issued on those grounds only. The NYT's find, while very interesting, is entirely tangential and not prima facie evidence of a direct effort. Obviously that's not to say Wikipedia cannot be a battleground for information warfare; if the user is more than meets the eye it may well be that there are eyes on them anyway. My two cents. — Define Real (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2019 (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.

Continued WP:NOTHERE editing by User:1DHNK1

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.

---

• 1DHNK1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please refer to this previous ANI case.
Admin Dennis Brown decided, in good faith to extend a massive amount of WP:ROPE the previous time this "editor" was reported (27 January 2019),[79] hoping he'd improve his ways. Unfortunately, to no avail, for "1DHNK1" just continued (9 February 2019)[80]-[81] with the exact same disruptive editorial pattern, without ever responding to the numerous warnings left on his talk page by users and admins alike.[82] Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say this user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• NPA block in 3... 2... 1... SITH (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"Blocked 48 hours for personal attacks and resumed edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2019 (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.

Abusive edit war on Tirupati_Airport

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.

---

Disruptive edits by some IP address like https://2405:204:541D:C6A0:830D:4C82:72A6:F95B https://2405:204:541D:C6A0:F7A3:B0CE:22EE:1682 In tirupati airport article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirupati_Airport He is Using vulgar and abusive words in hindi language as part of edit/reversion reason.

I suspect this is is WP:Sock of User User:LeoFrank Request you to investigate about the IP. By LovSLif (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your links aren't working right, but looking through the history the IP is engaging in vicious personal attacks (the edit summary is a swear word in Hindi). Blocked the latest IP and semiprotecting for a bit, plus I've revdeled a couple of the most egregious edit summaries. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:30, 9 February 2019 (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:MEAT and Wikipedia:No personal attacks by Hatchiko and Gnomsovet

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.

---

Gnomsovet admits that he knows Hatchiko personally[83]. Gnomsovet was last active in 2009, and presents the same viewpoint as Hatchiko in the current ongoing discussion in Balhae[84] and Balhae controversies[85], where Hatchiko was mainly active. These evidences strong suggest meat puppetry. Both Hatchiko[86] and Gnomsovet[87][88][89] accuse me of being a "Nazi", which I think is completely unwarranted and deem very offensive. Koraskadi (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I think Gnomsovet needs to be somewhere else for a while if not indefinitely. Any edit they don't like, they start shrieking "Nazi!" HalfShadow 01:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Both Hatchiko & Gnomsovet are currently indef blocked for socking. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 01:37, 10 February 2019 (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:Koraskadi, User:Garam, User:Vif12vf

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 was redirected here I do not know whether https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=882353664&oldid=882352170 I do not often edit something on wikipedia. But here for many years there are very doubtful things.

I decided to still bring them to the scientific mind. Cited references. Gave the opportunity to speak to all parties. And provide archaeologically based links. Discussed on the Talk page for each article.

But these users began to behave not ethically. Defending the position of South Korean Korean nationalists. Obviously working collectively. On link is in detail what and how it was. I am not a professional employee of Wikipedia or any Info lobby. And just a person acting out of the positions with sources and request the same. Therefore, I do not know all the protest procedures on Wikipedia - which are very confusing. So please treat with understanding if this request is not true targeted. Hatchiko (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hatchiko, there is a bright gold message when you edit this page that states you have to inform editors whom you are discussing in your complaint. I have done so for you and I hope Koraskadi, Garam, Vif12vf can add their thoughts to this discussion.

Also, it is typical in ANI complaints to supply "diffs", or edits, that are you using to back up your statement that these editors are not behaving ethically. Do you have any evidence to support this charge? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• All the evidence in the magazines of the articles themselves and the talk pages of these avenues - try to look at them before making counter accusations against the men who defended the scientific point of view - but to you here, apparently, nobody needs it. Well that zhd Korean Nazis reassure nuclear bomb. And here you live in the fictional world of Fakepedia.Hatchiko (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• I think user Hatchiko doesn't understand Wikipedia's rules well, so he/she unintentionally have created unnecessary argument until now. --Garam (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Please look at the current state of Balhae, which is Hatchiko's version, and judge for yourselves whether I am "vandalizing" by rolling back Hatchiko's edits. Many of the sources in fact are Western sources, not South Korean, and yet he labels them as "South Korean" viewpoint, and for others that disagree with his view, he labels them "unreliable". Koraskadi (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2019 (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.

Continued Vandalism by 86.156.47.138

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.

---

Hello this user has done vandalism on differnet pages and their talk page and keeps reverting it, please block them because they are being VERY disruptive. ABC123Unicorn (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You've only made 3 edits, and you're already here. Suspicious much? A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet. - Samf4u (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I know the ip have received many warning and then blanked by him/her. But if he/she received level 4 warning, is that more appropriate to report at WP:AIV? Boomerang to ABC123Unicorn is another story. Matthew hk (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I am here to revert Vandalism not to be a sock. I am helping Wikipedia. OKay I will not edit here then if I am making it worse so sorry. ABC123Unicorn (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No, we appreciate your help. Unfortunately, all of the sockpuppets cause the admins to look at a lot of people as suspicious. CLCStudent (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And WP:HAND. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I endorse it look likes good hand back hand account of someone engaged an edit war on the ip talk page. Matthew hk (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@ABC123Unicorn: Please walk away from the ip user talk page. Per WP:OWNTALK, he can blank the talk page. Now you engaged edit war to the ip instead. (Removing ip's personal attack is another thing). Matthew hk (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

ABC123Unicorn appears to be a new, enthusiastic user - I see no reason to suspect anything else. Acroterion (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

ABC123Unicorn CU blocked. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I've hard-blocked the IP. Acroterion (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Deserves the block for how much damage they have caused. ABC123Unicorn (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Be careful with saying "deserve" because blocks are not used as punishment. CLCStudent (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2019 (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.

Cross-wiki harassment by a blocked sockmaster

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.

---

• Justicwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2606:2E00:8003:10:0:0:1:2A69 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Ylonuwed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"Justicwiki", someone's sockpuppet (self-confessed),[90] left me this note yesterday on Commons.[91] I reported the sock to Commons ANI; admin Taivo subsequently indeffed him.[92]
Now he's using IP socks[93]-[94] and another account (Ylonuwed) [95]-[96]-[97] to leave me the exact same harassing note on other Wiki projects.

Can any admin deal with this?

Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• en.wiki admins can't deal with this, I'm afraid, as of course they don't have permissions on the numerous other wikis that you mention. A request to block an account that is harassing you at numerous wikis may be lodged at this venue. Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• (multiple ecs) The IP is already blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Opened a request at the venue you mentioned.[98] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I did some digging. It would appear these are socks of Rowingasia,[99] at least based on their editorial conduct. I checked the global contributions of User:Ylonuwed, IP 2606:2e00:8003:10::ff23 and IP 2606:2e00:8003:10::1:2a69. Other than just leaving me weird notes, they also wrote very insulting comments, in Persian, about @Mohsen1248:.[100]-[101] As you know, User:Mohsen1248 has filed numerous succesful SPI's on Rowingasia, so Rowingasia would have good "personal" reasons to hate him. Furthermore, we know that Rowingasia is related to the country Iran, at least in some way. Last but not least, these sock IP's and accounts became active right after the last CU sweep was conducted, less than 24 hours ago.[102] Behaviorally, they are a match IMO; but you, as a CU could probably shed more light on the "technical" part of the story. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I was pinged here, I don't know how I can help but I can tell you this is the same sockpuppet based on this which is insult toward me (or at least that's what he think, calling me gay) and yes he is from Iran and his English is very bad. that's probably why he mostly only attacks me because he probably can't curse others in English LOL. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mohsen1248: Yeah he now fully admits he's Rowingasia.[103] He keeps stalking me on other Wikiprojects and keeps insulting you. He's now making threats as well:

"Otherwise, if you want to refuse me, I will also deal with you in another way (...) As long as I do not have a compelling answer, I will pursue. Meanwhile, I am not always calm, patient and polite. It depends on your behavior."[104]

@Drmies: @Ymblanter: @Doug Weller: @Oshwah: - LouisAragon (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

But none of us is administrator on the German Wikipedia. I will be happy to help if it spreds into Commons, Wikidata, or (unlikely) Russian Wikivoyage, where I am administrator, but it is very little we can do beyond blocking the IP once they show up here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you for your reply. I have edited a section on Wikidata, previously opened by Mohsen1248.[105] He's literally leaving me a comment on every Wikipedia project out there, including Wikidata. Leaving me more threats as well ("hi loius. reply your mistake otherwise my calm will be end.")[106] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Here you can see his global contributions.[107] He's literally going through every Wikiproject. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

LouisAragon, now globally locked according to CentralAuth. SITH (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I semiprotected your talk page on Wikidata and indefblocked the user who left the last message there for harassment.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: @StraussInTheHouse: Thanks a lot, but he's at it again.[108]-[109] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Taken care of--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2019 (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.

Request an investigation and correction of the Wiki article - University of Management and Technology (Virginia)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Complaint fails verification. No further action needed here, but editors are encouraged to review University of Management and Technology (Virginia) because there appears to have been socking and possible conflict of interest editing. Jehochman ^Talk 02:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Dear Wikipedia:

My name is Yanping Chen, President of the University of Management and Technology (UMT). As a Wiki supporter and a donor, I am dismayed to see that Wiki has allowed two users, Flickotown and Wildcursive, to seize control of the UMT Wiki article to repeatedly add defamatory materials and false info about me and my university, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Management_and_Technology_(Virginia). I am also disturbed to see some Wiki administrators, two in particular, eagerly and quickly support the ill-intent of a disruptive player, Flickotown. Such blind support of Flickotown undid the consensus building by other editors and readers who were trying to build a university Wiki page according to the best practices of WikiProject_Universities.

In “View History,” you will notice that since 28 December 2018, Wildcursive and then Flickotown have taken a tag team approach (i.e., sockpuppet) to engage in a smear campaign on the Wiki page against me and my university. Interestingly, Flickotown created his Wikipedia account five days before the Wildcursive attack. You will see that they colluded to revert to their rendition describing the university based on defamatory materials and false information, deleting other useful information that a university Wiki page needs to display, such as institution authorizations and accreditations, academic and professional programs, various scholarships, and faculty and academic leadership and etc. Their coordination in the attack on the Wiki article can be seen in Flickotown’s note to Wildcursive at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wildcursive.

Having been rigidly supported by two Wiki administrators, Flickotown fought other Wiki editors and readers to turn our university’s Wiki page into a tabloid news jungle: while several editors had tried consensus editing to salvage the Wiki page, on 9 January responding to a call made by Flickotown on the NoticeBoard, Serial Number 54129, reverted an editor’s contribution ignoring the WikiProject_Universities best practice, and Bbb23 immediately blocked 4 users indefinitely who shared a common IP address on the grounds of “sock puppetry”. Again, on 28 January per Flickotown’s request, Bbb23 immediately reverted an edit completely, returning the Wiki article once again to the defamatory page written by Flickotown, and issued a “semi-protection” that retained Fickotown’s highly negative portrayal of the university as seen in the Wiki article today (See “View History” of the article and “Talk” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bbb23).

Flickotown’s and Wildcursive’s deleting the material describing our university and populating the Wiki page with absurd and irresponsible claims that are patently and demonstrably false, defame me and the university both directly and by implication, and will cause irreparable damage to our reputation, professional standing, and our faculty and students well-being. A corrective action should be taken by Wiki immediately.

As no other university’s Wiki page is treated this way on Wikipedia, I hereby ask Wikpedia: 1) to investigate the relationship between Flickotown and Wildcursive, and their multiple Wiki accounts, 2) to delete cherry-picked “facts” added in the article by Wildcursive and Flickotown as a smear campaign against me and my university because they are outright false that are currently being addressed in litigation in a federal court of the United States, 3) review all editors’ productive, consensus-focused contributions to the Wiki page, and correct the mistakes made by Wiki administrators in their edits that blindly supported Flickotown, 4) review the comments made in “Talk” by a reader aimed at restoring Wiki’s neutral presentation of a university, 5) unblock 4 wrongly accused Wiki users, and the Wiki page to allow the editors and readers to contribute to this university Wiki page adopting the best practice of WikiProject_Universties.

Very truly yours,

Yanping Chen, MD, PhD, PMP, PMI Fellow, UMT President — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.25.194 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You may wish to read this and this. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he's saying they're suing Wikipedia, but that they currently have ligitation relating to the press claims on which part of our article is based. I could be wrong, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Content such as UMT is approved by U.S. Department of Education to participate in Title IV program to provide Federal Student Aid (FSA) to qualified students to finance their studies in UMT education programs. seems unnecessary, and the editors adding it appear to be doing so to attempt to promote the university by giving WP:UNDUE weight to mundane claims. The material regarding possible ties to the Chinese government seems well-sourced [110]. I'm not sure what content is supposed to be defamatory, other than the very-verifiable fact that the named people were affiliated with this institution. Overall, I don't think there is anything that administrators need to do here, other than perhaps making the current semi-protection indefinite. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It'd be good to have "Controversies" section that isn't almost completely sourced to Fox News, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There's not a lot out there, I think because no charges have been filed against anyone, which raises a legitimate BLP issue with respect to Chen; however, there is this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing she's here because her obvious employee User:Bikerun (and his sockpuppet User:Mgtguru) isn't getting anywhere in justifying an unblock. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• As usual, all links are broken by the archiving system (this seems to come from a flat internal lack of competence, not from the bad will of any intelligence agency, from any country). In any case, the following link is interesting: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#Coordinated_editing_attack_on_University_of_Management_and_Technology_(United_States). Pldx1 (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Regarding the World Tribune article mentioned by Bbb23:

• The headline is "Report: School continues to receive Pentagon subsidies despite probe for China ties", but there is no specific information about subsidies; the only mention is a two-sentence paragraph quoting someone from a Fox News interview, claiming it's a bad deal for the taxpayers.
• The article seems to be sole-sourced from Fox News, which is mentioned 12 times.
• The article is almost two years old.
• Odd that World Tribune lists their legal counsel and backup paralegals in the footer of their pages.

I haven't researched the topic, so I don't know what part of any of it is true, but IMO, this article (and maybe the source) is not a WP:RS. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"World Tribune.com more fairly qualifies as something between a newspaper and a rumor-mongering blog."[111] Its facetious listing of legal counsel lists one as dead 30 years and the others as invented (Hammer and Tong, Rude and Nasty, Hussein). Its "mission is to provide leadership-minded readers everywhere with need-to-know reports missed by “mainstream” corporate media" and it claims to share reports with DrudgeReport.com, The Washington Times, Hoover Institution, Geostrategy-Direct.com, Breitbart.com, Hudson Institute, WorldNetDaily and East-Asia-Intel.com. It "endorses Good and rejects evil".[112] It does appear WP:QUESTIONABLE. 92.19.28.243 (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Request: That Wikipedia editors and administrators support Wikipedia’s policy on BLP and follow WikiProject Universities’ guidelines when making editorial and administrative decisions. The posted version of the Wikipedia UMT article (as of 11:00 am, 02/09/19) is given a low rating of “Start Class” by WikiProject Universities/Assessment. That’s the bottom of the barrel and reflects the sensationalist mess that is currently posted on the UMT article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities/Assessment#Quality_scale Since Wildcursive’s 12/28/18 posting, followed by Flickotown’s tag team edits and reversions, almost all academic content has been removed from the article. Authorizations (e.g., accreditations, government approvals, professional society approvals, and more) have been gutted. Authorizations are a standard feature of university Wiki pages and are crucial when describing a university’s standing, because they give students insights into the qualifications of the educational organization. Also, the low quality rating reflects disregard for the BLP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons owing to the persistent attacks on Dr. Yanping Chen’s character. Not conforming to Wiki-approved BLP practice is explicitly identified as a potential deficiency of schools whose pages receive a Start Class rating. UMT is an established, accredited university with 23,000 alumni, and it deserves to have a Wiki article that describes its capabilities and achievements. Wikipedia administrators and editors need to enable UMT’s Wiki article to achieve the highest standards defined by WikiProject Universities, which cannot be done so long as the UMT article is continually vandalized with “facts” coming from politically-colored tabloids.

Request: That Wikipedia editors and administrators recognize when making editorial and administrative judgments that a large portion of the Fox News story is not reliable on its face. The Wiki article is filled with false information based primarily on a single unreliable source of information, Fox News, which built its story on one-sided information illegally leaked to it by a single unhappy source. Because the information is leaked without attribution, it cannot be validated. Interestingly, when the Fox News story came out two years ago, no reputable newspaper (NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, others) reported on it or conducted their own investigations, because they recognized the lack of credibility in using distorted, sensationalist intent of the published pieces. Contrary to the Fox News claims, the University was never a target in the FBI’s investigation in 2012 or in 2017. The sole source of information for the Fox News claim of a renewed FBI investigation (reported in the June 28,2017 Fox News article) was then Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who when interviewed by Fox News said regarding the FBI, “They’re quote, unquote reopening the investigation.” Quote, unquote? That’s it … nothing more. At the end of the news, the author acknowledged that when queried, the FBI neither confirmed nor denied it had "re-opened" the investigation. Also, neither Fox News nor Chaffetz mentioned that Chaffetz was leaving Congress in two days and joining Fox News as an analyst three days after being quoted in the article. (https://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/28/jason-chaffetz-join-fox-news-channel-contributor-role-press-release ) Conflict of interest? The undisputed fact is that there was an FBI investigation based on racial profiling that lasted five years, and resulted no charges were bought against Yanping Chen, or anyone else affiliated to her. This reality is buttressed with the fact that in Spring 2016, Yanping Chen was informed by the US Attorney's office that the investigation was closed. Even Fox News acknowledged this in its articles. So that’s it. The US Attorney Office in the US Department of Justice made the decision, and if someone in the FBI didn’t like it (which is what Fox News reported), too bad. That’s how the rule of law works. UMT Admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.25.194 (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The two users mentioned by the creator of this ANI did not notify them on their user talk pages as required and stated on the ANI header - I have gone ahead and done so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, having gone through the ANI request, the article's edit history, and the contributions of both Wildcursive and Flickotown, as well as the previous ANI case about this - I'm seeing that most of the accusations made by the creator of this discussion are simply not true. I see no "collusion" or any kind of communication attempts between Wildcursive and Flickotown to coordinate and revert the article and keep restoring the content in question. The only direct communication that I found was this edit by Flickotown leaving a barnstar for Wildcursive regarding edits to the article in question and the edit warring and removal of the content by two IP users over the span of a few days at the beginning of January 2019. I also see no evidence of sock puppetry or attempts to engage in a "smear campaign", as the creator of this discussion made clear accusations toward these users of doing. The "defamatory, false, and abusive content" and the "attempts to seize control of the article" all refer to content added to the article that seem to be referenced by reliable sources (well, okay, a reliable source) and appears to be the ANI creator throwing a big "I don't like it" stink over it. The last ANI discussed a similar matter, but involved policy violations and sock puppetry by four accounts that were confirmed and blocked. Whether or not there's any neutrality issues or issues regarding due and undue weight with the content can be discussed on the article's talk page. Other than that, I'm seeing no policy violations by the two accused accounts and pretty much nothing but empty and unfounded accusations by the submitting IP user and with absolutely no proof or evidence supplied. If anything, what I've found shows sock puppetry, edit warring, disruptive editing, and other tomfooleries by accounts and IP users seeking to remove the content in question, not by the users who added it... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:39, 11 February 2019 (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.

POV, WP:TEND, and other issues with Inowen

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.

---

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

Not quite sure what to do here, but I've noticed some very problematic behavior from Inowen. This user has been, in my view, POV pushing on Talk:Homosexuality. They wish to increase the visibility of the fringe theory that homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse of children. This user has been on Wikipedia long enough that it should be safe to assume they understand WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE.

Yet they point to Conservapedia as a model for content here and that there are gay activists are in force on Wikipedia [that act as a lobby, and for political reasons brush away theories connecting homosexuality to sexual abuse, physical violence, and other environmental factors]. Inowen insists that the actual fringe theory is that God made gays gay in the genetic code and that if the idea is that there is no God anyway, then that's injecting atheism into the argument and connecting homosexual politics with atheism. Also see [113]. Additionally, credentialed researchers propose outlandish theories like "gay genes are real and there is no God and homosexuality is normal".

Today, when Mathglot replied to this user, Inowen expressed concern that a "genderqueer atheist/agnostic just called [Mathglot] to intervene here on his [sic] behalf" which would discredit anything Mathglot has to say. Inowen went on to express concern that Wikipedia is injecting atheism and demanding that all articles honor atheist point of view.

I am not sure what to do about this other than bring it to the community for consideration. This user clearly hold strong and rather extreme beliefs, but their approach to editing this article and working with other editors does not appear to be constructive and is tendentious. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

So far he hasn't edited the article, just posted his crackpot comments to the talk page. Nothing the gay cabal can't handle. Not an ANI matter, at least not yet. EEng 21:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

What, nothing about Monarchy? Shocking. Qwirkle (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: Not following that one tbh. EEng That's why I wasn't sure what to do about this. The personal attack rustled my jimmies a tad, and I recognized that, but it still seemed to be moving past regular nonsense we see and into agitating tendentious nonsense. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This might explain it. Creative connections between ideas appears to be his metier. Qwirkle (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

See here also; this editor appears to have a particular ultra-crank theory that (1) British democracy is a fake, (2) Britain is secretly still ruled by the monarchy, (3) agents of said monarchy are trying to subvert America, (4) Wikipedia is their chosen medium for doing so and (5) because everyone else on Wikipedia has been subverted by agents of the monarchy it falls on him to fight back for the forces of democracy against the fake democrats. ‑ Iridescent 00:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

So it's like he said: a cabal of queens controls everything. EEng 00:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Um, EvergreenFir has several times misrepresented what I have said:

• He said: "They wish to increase the visibility of the fringe theory that homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse of children" - My interest is in whether there have been some inquiries into whether maybe just maybe some of why gays are gay is because they were abused when they were younger. EvergreenFir characterizes my interest as an agenda; God forbid anyone be interested in environmental factors; and he uses the wording "fringe theory" for anything environmental; which is POV pushing in the idea that gayness is genetic. The main issue EvergreenFir seems to have is that I disagree with their gay POV pushing.
• I didn't say gays acted as a lobby here, I said that the typical Conservapedian would make arguments of a similar kind, that gays work together like a lobby here. Continuing along those lines, gay POV pushers, call them whatever group name you want, seem to be against the idea of environmental causes like abuse (including physical abuse and stress at home) as a factor in being gay. There is a little bit of handling of the research I brought up, but it looks like its been buried at the bottom of the environment and sexual orientation article.

Qwirkle raises something totally unrelated, me in discussions on the monarchy article, as evidence of my tendentious editing. Heaven forbid anyone having no love for the British Empire, and how dare anyone think gays were not created gay but have faced abuse and difficult situations. I ask that, because other topics are out the scope of this ANI, this ANI be confined to Talk:Homosexuality, which is indeed about queens, ;) , but a certain type of queen and not any other (by the way "queen" can be a plural). To come up with a hodgepodge of criticisms of me would be improper here, so if that's what you want to do, do it formally.

Iridescent wrote:

"this editor appears to have a particular ultra-crank theory that (1) British democracy is a fake, (2) Britain is secretly still ruled by the monarchy, (3) agents of said monarchy are trying to subvert America, (4) Wikipedia is their chosen medium for doing so and (5) because everyone else on Wikipedia has been subverted by agents of the monarchy it falls on him to fight back for the forces of democracy against the fake democrats."

Yes, that's all correct, except the part about using Wikipedia only. They threaten the US if the US doesn't comply with their schemes, and they extort money from the US because they don't generate wealth; because dictatorships like Venezuela dont inspire economic confidence. But that has nothing to do with the ANI here. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought that was the Jews. EEng 01:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't say anything not supportive about the Jews either. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I got mixed up with the shapeshifting reptiles. EEng 01:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Well don't get confused. The science fiction stories are just metaphors. Metaphors. Drawn from real life, but not actually true. Not reptiles, exactly. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, metaphors. Metaphors drawn from real life. It all makes sense. EEng 01:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Qwirkle raises something totally unrelated, me in discussions on the monarchy article That’s simply untrue, as a glance at the link showed above, and shows here now. You were soapboxing on the WP:Signpost’s suggestions page, and drew some remarkably big inferences out of very little evidence, in a way that suggested racing thoughts. Qwirkle (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Racing thoughts? Is that a psychological diagnosis? Its possible you are a shrink, but even so this is not the forum for your professional opinions. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, luckily, Wikipedia doesn't rely on your opinions or mine (or reptiles) about homosexuality or the monarchy but on reliable, secondary sources. I don't think you will find very solid ones representing your POV. It seems more like we need another reminder that article talk pages are not discussion forums to share ones opinions and argue about social issues with other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've noticed Inowen popping up at various TPs and discussion forums (VPP, Signpost) and I'm not sure there's a remedy under present circumstances, although if any of this material gets into articles, then it becomes a different story. Imho, he is WP:NOTHERE. The best capsule description was Jayron32's, at this RefDesk thread: "[T]he OP [Inowen] seems to be here to seek affirmation rather than information.". That's it, in a nutshell; he's here to promote a (sometimes wacky) POV, and right great wrongs.

Even when something is well outside the normal scope of culture war hot-button issues, like Syllable, he manages to introduce some pure OR (diff) that gets rapidly reverted, accompanied by appropriately derisive comments on the Talk page characterizing the changes as "nonsense", "meaningless", and "demonstrably false". Can't wait to see what happens when he edits Homosexuality. I've left comments (twice) about V and RS at the discussion thread linked to in the OP, but after a year he should know basic principles.

I think that now, we're at the intersection of ROPE and CIR, and we just have to see which way things break. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm close to supporting a site ban. I'm seeing they're still pushing their fantasy world about how the queen has hacked the UN and is trying to destroy America and wikipedia via defamation law or something (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 November 1). If they're now branching out into causing problems in other areas, it's probably getting time to show them the door. The fact that they're largely sticking to talk pages, reduces the problem, but not when it's so extreme. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The reservations regarding immediate action that have been expressed here so far seem to be predicated less on the community members not viewing this user as problematic and more a matter of consternation that they are not violating brightline rules such as edit warring or personal attacks against specific editors. But even in the absence of such edits, an editor can still be a disruptive influence and clear case of a net negative as regards WP:CIR, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and WP:NOTHERE.

It's the last of those that is the crux of the matter here, as I don't think this user shows any signs of being willing to learn how sources are interpreted and serve as the underpinning for our content on this project. Rather I think it's pretty obvious that the extent of their engagement with policy has been to learn just enough of the jargon of talk page process to continue to push their favourite conspiracy theories and WP:FRINGE science without standing out too much, but also without making even a basic effort to accept and internalize WP:DUE requirements, which is particularly an issue given they seem to edit entirely in controversial areas. At a certain point, I believe it's entirely appropriate for the community to decide that they are unlikely to suddenly start understanding how these fundamental policies work, because their objective is not to work within those guidelines but rather to try to conform the articles they work on to the beliefs which brought them here in the first place. And we are by no means beholden to entertaining that behaviour forever, regardless of how little direct editing they do to the article in question and how willing they are to discuss, where such discussion is actually just protracted arguments in which they steadfastly refuse to really learn our core content policies. Snow ^{let's rap} 16:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• When this thread opened I didn't realize the breadth of the insanity. A ban or indef seems appropriate. EEng 15:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• God—or reptilian serpent overlord from the Shadow Kingdom—forgive me, but despite everything I'm going to oppose blocking (striking, see below) at this stage. Certainly, Inowen has spent the last few months spewing idiocy of a level so stupid even the other conspiracy theorists consider it garbage (the UK has had 17 major elections/referenda in the past decade, all of which have produced wildly varying results; presumably if democracy is a sham to rubber-stamp the decisions made by the Secret Rulers Of The World, the SROTW have changed their minds about their preferred course of action 17 times in that period, and it seems somewhat unlikely that any self respecting serpent-man would select Boris Johnson or Arlene Foster as their divine instruments; plus, the whole theory is predicated on the assumption that not a single person has noticed the conspiracy in the 300+ years since the rest of the world believes the British monarchy lost the last of its powers). However, as far as I can see nobody has explicitly warned him (I think we can safely assume this is a 'him', and if such things as this are anything to go by extremely young as well) that such things aren't acceptable and that Wikipedia reflects only what reliable sources say, not whatever drivel he happens to believe. I don't consider the initial point at Talk:Homosexuality#Studies of abuse which prompted this to be particularly problematic; the idea that sexuality is a product of experience rather than of hormones or genetics may not be widely accepted, but it's certainly not wholly discredited and it's legitimate to discuss whether it should be given greater weight in an article. While I very much doubt that Inowen is likely to be willing to comply with Wikipedia's rules—which require us all regularly to say things we don't personally believe provided that's what the sources say—I'm extremely reluctant to kick someone out for what appears to be a cack-handed but good-faith effort to comply with policy. ‑ Iridescent 19:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: From your earlier notion that the user claims "agents of said monarchy are trying to subvert America", I wonder if this current issue has anything to do with it... SemiHypercube 20:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No; he's been hawking his "Britain is secretly ruled by the Queen" conspiracy theory for months now. See here, here or here. ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a borderline case and though I personally lean towards recognizing the WP:NOTHERE spade for a spade and taking some action now (topic bans if not an indef), WP:ROPE with a strongly worded warning is reasonable alternative solution for even a concerned community member to endorse here. However, I have to disagree as to one very central point: I don't see much effort here to comply with (or indeed, even a good-faith effort to try to understand) policy. Looking specifically at the thread you linked to, this editor predicates their arguments in:

• Ad hominems and misinterpretations of policy to try to invalidate the position of other editors ("[I think that probably] the one who self identifies as a genderqueer atheist/agnostic just called you to intervene here on his behalf; that would completely invalidate everything you have said here above, (even though it paraphrases standard reference to policy) as you are acting as an agent for the other party."),
• Tendentious straw man arguments ("The other side proposes the idea that God made gays gay in the genetic code which is actual fringe.", where no one has mentioned any role for divine influence but him), and
• Arguments which advance a philosophical debate rather than discussion predicated on sources and the actual metrics we use to resolve content disputes ("Also any idea where 'behavior x is permissable [sic] because there is no God' is injecting atheism and demanding that all articles honor atheist point of view.").

This user has been here for a year and has clearly been made aware of editorial requirements in the vein of WP:reliable sources and the prohibition on WP:original research, and yet all of their arguments attest to a steadfast denial to either understand or apply those standards. What we have here is not someone trying to comply with policy, but rather someone who superficially applies a little of the policy language they have heard, but warped through a lens such that it simply means whatever they need it to mean to affirm their POV pushing (for example, dropping the term "weight" liberally into a discussion to argue for why a fringe concept should have broader coverage in the article and then never supplying so much as a single reference to a reliable source). At the end of the day, it may prove to be consensus to give this editor a little more time to adjust, but if that's the case, it will only be for procedural reasons linked to our being able to have confidence that we are not applying our processes hastily, not because we can have very much confidence that this user will adjust and that we won't have to apply sanctions eventually. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

SemiHypercube: "the idea that sexuality is a product of experience rather than of hormones or genetics may not be widely accepted, but it's certainly not wholly discredited and it's legitimate to discuss whether it should be given greater weight in an article." Right, its "not wholly discredited." There is theory bias; where the question of what the moon is made of being dominated by fromagers, who write a lot of papers, but in the end it is made of rock, like the some people have been saying. The only problem with the article that I see is that it gives undue weight to genetic theories, which seem to be fromager craft.-Inowen (nlfte) 20:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I hadn't realised that this editor was this guy. In light of the demonstrable history of being told what was and wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia—and this spectacularly clueless comment, which I can only interpret as "I don't care what the sources say, my opinions take priority"—Wikipedia is clearly not the appropriate place for Inowen. Switching to support indef. ‑ Iridescent 21:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that "spectacularly clueless comment" is the one right before yours only two comments up from this one. Others can read it for themselves. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

So while digging a hole for yourself your strategy is to get a bigger shovel? Bold move.MPJ-DK (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Besides that, I think they've clearly been told often enough they need to cut it out. E.g. Inowen has been explicitly told before they need to cut out the nonsense talk page comments in various discussions, see e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 147#Removal of talk page comments or my comments here [114]. Then there are a bunch of mostly templated warnings on their talk page User talk:Inowen including [115] and [116]. And those are only the talk page related ones. There are other warnings e.g. these weren't templated and dealt with article content [117]. Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef NOTHERE block. This is a timesink. Miniapolis 23:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. Note that he hasn't been confining his antics to talk and WP pages, either: see Cold living, Big questions (AFD), Human identity, Connecting wheel, Original programming, Global policy (AFD), Fundamental principles (RFD), Draft:Protection of children, and Face type (AFD). --Calton | Talk 00:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  This is the second time in recent days that I've been inspired to suggest that in addition to Draft: space we should also have Daft: space. EEng 07:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. Paul August ☎ 00:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Banish to the Shadow Realm (indef) per above. SemiHypercube 01:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef per Snow, at 20:54, 9 Feb. Possibly my first vote to WP:INDEF, which I don't take lightly; therefore, this reminder to self: Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. and Indefinite does not mean infinite: an indefinitely blocked user may later be unblocked in appropriate circumstances. This is best for the integrity of the encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef. There have been more disruptive cases in the history of ANI, but ultimately at the end of the day this user does not seem to be WP:HERE to me, nor do I think they have evidenced a willingness to learn policy in a substantive way, as opposed to learning a few phrases to tack on to their WP:OR. More POV editors have learned to adapt with time, but I don't see that happening here short of a strong response from the community. As Mathglot alludes to, this editor can always try the WP:Standard offer to regain editing privileges, though I advise them strongly that they are going to want to spend a lot of time reading and trying to truly internalize our policies to come to a true understanding of what it means to edit for the sake of the encyclopedia itself (rather than to advance one's personal views), as there may well be some pressing questions when they request to rejoin the project. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef I've had issues with this editor and shared most of the concerns above over a few issues but without knowing the depth of the problem. Now that I've seen the other details it's clear that "NOTHERE" applies and that it seems unlikely that there's going to be any change in at least the near future. I'm very glad this was brought here. Doug Weller talk 07:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose indef While many people have had to deal with his...unique view of things, communicating style, and so forth, how many have dragged him in here before? The number of Wikiteurs who will falsely or mistakenly invoke policy in an argument is high, high enough that someone - especially someone with other issues- might not take the advice given as seriously as they should. Explain, warn, maybe give some time off, especially on certain articles, but a ban for the first time in here, according to the archive search? Qwirkle (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment ANI is intended for stuff which needs administrative attention. This can include short term blocks, topic bans and long term blocks. It is not intended for warnings. If editors are refusing to listen to their fellow editors because they haven't been taken to ANI, that's their own fault really, and definitely not something we should be encouraging. We are already wasting enough time on AN//I as it is. Of course it's not even about listening to what other say really. It's about actually reading the policies and guidelines cited. While it's not required to read them before contributing, it's unreasonable for editors to just keep ignoring them when they are repeatedly told of them. Having read the policies and guidelines, if an editor is having trouble understanding them, then seeking feedback is fine, but in that case yes 'listening' is important. Unfortunately while the seeking feedback has been attempted e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 147#Removal of talk page comments, the listening and understanding not so much. As shown in this very thread. Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that is sliding a little to easily between the prescriptive and the descriptive, between what is, and what should be. As a practical matter, warnings, templates, and invocation of policy elsewhere have long since been weaponized, and because of that they are background noise. Qwirkle (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: That this is the first time at ANI doesn not really matter. To anyone who looks at enough of their edits, it should soon become clear that they are not making, and more importantly are not tempermentally able to make, positive contributions to the encyclopedia.Paul August ☎ 15:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef or site ban Editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE and have shown zero signs of learning in this very thread. Of course such things are not permanent, and if they are able to show signs they've learnt how to contribute productively on wikipedia, then they are free to appeal as always. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef, hold off on formal ban for now - His behaviour is that of a man on a mission from God. Which would be fine if not for the evidence provided that his goal is to try and turn Wikipedia into a slightly less woo-filled and crackpotty Conservapedia. That, and his replies above do not inspire confidence in the slightest that he'll actually try and make an effort to learn. (Disclosure: I identify as a homosexual male.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:34, 10 February 2019 (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.

Jb3842

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.

---

Jb3842 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:NOTHERE, WP:TE by massive WP:SOCKing and renaming of articles while violating WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Has been socking as 68.198.161.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

See e.g. [118]. And [119], [120] and [121], some of which have been performed past final warning. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And three-times deleted the ANI report about themself. I'm indef'ing the named account NOTHERE. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I left the IP unblocked but, though the problem was rapid-fire on-going at the time, the IP suddenly stopped too. Yay autoblocks (and further supporting the really obvious puppetry based on the edits themselves). DMacks (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2019 (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.

80.5.1.159

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 makes large, impulsive and detailed changes to articles on Welsh places, many of which are irrelevant historical treatises, unbalancing the articles. There are no edit summaries, no discussions, and no notice taken of warnings of unsourced additions. The only engagements are adversarial. Some edits are useful and sourced, but poorly formatted. The user is clearly angry about something, and wants to turn Welsh articles into a history lesson, and will not brook any contradiction. They have started edit warring on Laugharne. This User_talk:Tony_Holkham#Your_self-important_vandalism_has_got_to_stop,. unsigned message was left on my talk page this morning, accusing me of vandalism. It is unacceptable. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The reported IP user has been blocked for one month by Bbb23 and unblock requests declined by both myself and 331dot with explanations, such as here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 10 February 2019 (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.

Persistent Vandalism already with a Level 4 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.

---

Nibbabeata (talk · contribs)

Difs: Noose Article NotHERE additions Stereotyping

Gaelan just placed the level 4 warning template, but I would suggest a bit more for editor with this amount of vandalism. (I'd also delete from page history to start with). Thank you all. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 18:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor as a vandalism only account. In the future, file such reports at WP:AIV please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 11 February 2019 (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.

Revoke talk page for ElectronicBlitz?

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.

---

ElectronicBlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been spamming rude stuff on their talk page. Could we get a talk page block? (P.S. Is this the right venue? I tried AIV but it was auto-removed because they were already blocked.) Gaelan 💬✏️ 04:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Personal attacks are never tolerated and their TPA should be revoked. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2019 (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.

Superman Fan 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.

---

Superman Fan 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what is even happening there. The user refuses to explain, yet continues.

Please see: Special:PermanentLink/882959409 and Special:Contributions/Superman Fan 2

Courtesy ping Largoplazo. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2019 (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:Sorabino engaging in nationalistic POV pushing at Serbo-Croatian by ignoring WP:CONSENSUS

User:Sorabino has been engaging in an edit war at Serbo-Croatian to push an unscientific nationalistic agenda in the lead paragraphs. A discussion was initiated on the talk page to see if there were some way for him to compromise to reach a consensus. He has proven to be completely unwilling to compromise. User:TaivoLinguist has marshalled multiple reliable sources to demonstrate that the views Sorabino wants to push are not supported by either linguistic science or a preponderence of linguists in the field. Taivo agrees that an appropriate comment is warranted in the middle of the article to express the unscientific minority position that Sorabino advocates. A half dozen other editors, including one administrator, have weighed in on the Talk Page and have uniformly and unequivocally supported Taivo's position. Not one single editor has supported Sorabino's position. Sorabino refuses to recognize that consensus is against him and continues to insert his unscientific fringe position in the lead. It is crystal clear that Sorabino's agenda has nothing to do with scientific accuracy and everything to do with pushing a nationalistic agenda by this entry he made on User:Vanjagenije's Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

All claims of user TaivoLinguist are false. For years now, he has been policing article Serbo-Croatian, and several other relating articles, by suppressing all content on scholarly views that are different from his own. That is why I initiated discussions on relevant talk pages here, and here, and also pointed out the similar problems here. In all those talks, I was advocating the introduction of relevant and referenced content, that would represent full scope of scholarly views on the subjects in question, while TaivoLinguist was constantly opposing to that. He continued to police and manipulate the content, reverting referenced edits on several occasions. Believe it or not, he was constantly removing data on official ISO classification, until the issue was raised on the talk page. And even than, he continued to oppose any balanced addition to the lead of the article. Please, take a look of his latest reverts. For example, he reverted this referenced and 100 % neutral edit: "Several questions regarding the linguistic nature and classification of Serbo-Croatian have been the subject of long-standing debates and disputes. Within the scholarly scope of Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy, there is a wide spectrum of different views and opinions regarding the question whether Serbo-Croatian comprises a single language, or a cluster of closely related, but separate and distinctive languages. Current linguistic views on those subjects are spanning from the notion that Serbo-Croatian still exist as a unified language, up to the notion that it never really existed as such, with majority of views falling somewhere in between those two opposite poles". And he is labeling that as "nationalism". But, it is very good that these problems were raised here finally, because something has to be done regarding the state of Serbo-Croatian article, and several other related articles that have been policed and censored in similar way for a very long time. Sorabino (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As with the entire discussion at Talk:Serbo-Croatian, User:Sorabino exaggerates and ignores the actual truth of the situation. I'll take it point by point:

• "For years now" Serbo-Croatian has been on my watchlist, but the notion that I have been rigorously "policing it" is false. My edits on it have been few and far between and have all been related to reverting the fly-by-night nationalists from Serbia and Croatia who practice hit-and-run tactics. This is common in articles on the Balkans.
• I have suppressed no "scholarly views", but only the nationalistic misinterpretation of isolated, cherry-picked statements that editors like Sorabino have found with limited searches on Google Books. For example, Sorabino found a quote from Ronelle Alexander where she called the standard forms of Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian "languages". However, when one actually reads the entire text, one finds that she actually says that "Serbo-Croatian" is one language from the linguistic "communicative" angle and three national languages only from the non-linguistic "symbolic" angle. I added this interesting and relevant detail in the Sociolinguistics section of the article while Sorabino only wanted the "several languages" misrepresentation added to the lead. In addition, Sorabino consistently wants to highlight a comment from Encyclopedia Britannica and has ignored the fact that EB is considered a poor quality source when there are peer-reviewed scholarly works that don't simplify the issue and are considered the best sources per WP:RS. Another source that Sorabino wants to highlight is ISO 639-3, but he has been told multiple times on the Talk Page that among linguists that is not considered a source for linguistic classification at all, but is simply a cataloguing tool, not based on rigorous linguistic methodology. He consistently ignores all reliable linguistic classifications that linguists themselves respect (such as Glottologue) that don't fit within his nationalistic POV.
• His "neutral claim" is actually based on his ignoring WP:UNDUE. He has simply worded his POV to make it sound like the sources are balanced when they are not. Because he has cherry-picked quotes based on biased Google Books searches (and not actually handling the books themselves and examining the entire chapter on the topic), he ignores all the qualifications that the authors give for why Serbo-Croatian is, indeed, a linguistically-defined single language, but that sociolinguistic factors make the national standards seem like different languages because of differing names.
• Sorabino's nationalist POV was most pronounced when he asked User:Vanjagenije why he took my side and didn't stand up for the honor of Serbia here.
• Sorabino also confuses the two meanings of "Serbo-Croatian". The majority of his arguments deal with the standard language in use during the Yugoslavia era. But the linguistic meaning of "Serbo-Croatian" as a language is the cover term for a group of dialects that includes Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Shtokavian. The Shtokavian dialect consists of Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Serbian national standards plus a couple of minor non-national subdialects.
• During the discussion at Talk:Serbo-Croatian, the following editors have, to one extent or another, expressed support for at least part of my position in the complex discussion: User:Uanfala, User:Vanjagenije, User:Surtsicna, User:Nama.Asal, User:Vorziblix, User:Rua. User:GregorB supported part of Sorabino's position, but asked for my references. I provided him with a link to a detailed discussion and he responded with WP:TLTR and then took no further part in the discussion. Thus, there is a clear WP:CONSENSUS that the extensive introduction of WP:UNDUE and, in some cases, WP:FRINGE, comments in the lead is inappropriate. I have included all of Sorabino's references in the Sociolinguistic section of the article along with brief summaries of the various positions. But the misinterpretations of their positions and the inclusion of radical minority positions in the lead is inappropriate.

--Taivo (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• From the instruction on the top of this page: Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.- MrX 🖋 12:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, this topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions. If you can support your assertions with diffs showing policy violating conduct, WP:AE would probably be a better place to seek resolution.- MrX 🖋 12:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I would like to be told which of my edits are actually problematic? There is no need for me to go into further polemics with my accuser here, since he is not presenting any facts relevant to this discussion. In fact, maybe administrators should take a look at this recent chain of my accusers edits: first he removed totally neutral and fully referenced content from the lead, then he reverted that same edit, and then he replaced same content with his own, totally different content masking it as "summary", and finally, he removed his own content. Four steps in a row, each and every of them pure manipulation of content. Sorabino (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorabino, you are the editor who wrote the following at User talk:Vanjagenije: "On the other hand, you are an administrator, from Serbia, and that gives you additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues that are so frequently debated in relation to politics, history and language. Whatever your personal views are, it is not proper for an administrator from Serbia to side with someone who is openly denying the full scope of Croatian language. That looks very bad for all of us, and I am pointing that out as an ethnic Serb from Serbia. So, please, do not use your authority as an administrator to support or empower such radical views." That is an overtly nationalistic appeal for an administrator to side with you in a content dispute simply because you are both Serbians. That is shocking and utterly unacceptable nationalistic behavior in my view, but we will see what other editors have to say about your behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, I am quite surprised by your comment, so please help me to understand where did I appeal to that administrator to side with me, and what was "nationalist" in my behavior? I appealed to him not to side with users who were denying the full scope of Croatian language, but you did not cite that section, which precedes the one you quoted and gives context to it. Do you think that it was wrong of me to state my ethnicity and nationality? I am an ethnic Serb, from Serbia, is it forbidden to say that? And I was taking in favor of the full scope of Croatian language, not against it! So, that was "shocking and utterly unacceptable nationalistic behavior" by your standards? Did I attack any other nationality? Obviously not. So, maybe your should save your outrage for real cases of nationalism that are not rare. Sorabino (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

1. ...you are an administrator, from Serbia, and that gives you additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues...
2. ...it is not proper for an administrator from Serbia to side with someone who is openly denying the full scope of Croatian language.
3. That looks very bad for all of us, and I am pointing that out as an ethnic Serb from Serbia.
4. So, please, do not use your authority as an administrator to support or empower such radical views.

It would have been shorter to quote the parts that weren't "a nationalistic appeal for an administrator to side with you in a content dispute simply because you are both Serbians." ^Leviv_ich 17:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, man! If there ever was a blunt carving of someones edit and taking it out of context, totally ... Why are you misrepresenting my edit in such way? I did not call that administrator to side with me in any way, nor did I state my ethnicity because of that! During past years I had several disputes with that same administrator and he knows very well that I am from Serbia too. Precisely because the two of us never agree on anything I was free to comment in that way, just look at my previous comment on him, during the same debate. Read that and you will see that I clearly did not expect him to side with me on the subject. But, here is my edit in full: "Why are you supporting user TaivoLinguist who is openly advocating against the full scope of modern Croatian language, most recently in talk pages of several articles, like "here" and "here"? You are very well aware that for several years now he is trying to reduce Croatian language to Štokavian variant only, by claiming that Čakavian and Kajkavian variants do not belong within the scope of modern Croatian language. But, those are his views. On the other hand, you are an administrator, from Serbia, and that gives you additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues that are so frequently debated in relation to politics, history and language. Whatever your personal views are, it is not proper for an administrator from Serbia to side with someone who is openly denying the full scope of Croatian language. That looks very bad for all of us, and I am pointing that out as an ethnic Serb from Serbia. So, please, do not use your authority as an administrator to support or empower such radical views". As you can see, the very essence of my edit is totally different from your fragmentary misrepresentations. Sorabino (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sorabino: You, above: "I would like to be told which of my edits are actually problematic?"

Cullen328: [specific quote]

You: "...please help me to understand where did I appeal to that administrator to side with me, and what was 'nationalist' in my behavior."

Me: [highlighting even more specific quotes]

You: "...out of context, totally..."

The part where you made a nationalistic appeal is the part where you told an admin that because of their nationality, they have "additional responsibility" and that "it is not proper for an administrator from [it doesn't matter what country] to side with someone who is...[it doesn't matter what the content dispute is]" and that this "looks very bad for all of us, and I am pointing that out as an ethnic [doesn't matter] from [doesn't matter]."

An editor's nationality is never a reason for them take a certain side in a dispute and it never means an editor has any additional responsibilities. To suggest otherwise is–what are the words I'm looking for?–"an overtly nationalistic appeal...shocking and utterly unacceptable nationalistic behavior...".

By the way, that "previous comment" you linked to, the one where you say to the same admin, You are known to be a staunch advocate of Serbo-Croatian "language", so there is no need for you to pretend to be neutral in this debate. For years now, you were just fine wit continuous suppression and censorship of all other views in this article and other related articles...you are trying to cover yourself, as an administrator who bares great responsibility for the creation of this problem. Since you are part of the problem, you should let other administrators to make their impartial judgement here., borders on a personal attack in my view. ^Leviv_ich 19:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This is rich, indeed. You are accusing me now that I was trying, in the same time, to personally attack that administrator, and also to make him side with me, as you stated before :) And in fact, I was not doing any of that, since I was only criticizing him and making comments on his support for some other users and their problematic views. And that is all clear as a day. But, you obviously tried to misrepresent my views by carving my edit, and now you went even further, inventing the totally opposite, but equally unfounded accusation. To much free time, I guess ... Sorabino (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sorabino, your edit was at the very least casting WP:ASPERSIONS upon an administrator and attempting to influence their actions that would conform to a behavior more to your liking. Personally I thought @Sorabino had turned a new page from this kind of canvassing type behavior on 'patriotic' grounds as was done in 2018 on Serbian Wikipedia, with attempts to draw editors [122], [123] from there into disputes on English Wikipedia that earned him a block [124]. Its concerning to see that pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing has reappeared with @Sorabino which have the hallmarks of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. The editor is more interested in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Looking at the comments of the editor, I don't think they are here to build this encyclopedia.Resnjari (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(EC) Just a hint: I guess you're trying to depersonalise the dispute or something, but it's very weird to refer to yourself in the third person in this way, especially when you didn't give any hint until your signature that you're referring to yourself. In fact there's a strong risk commenting in that way could be seen as misleading as you're making it sound like you're referring to what someone else did when in fact you're referring to what you did. Your views on how you marshalled RS etc are always going to be seen in that light. (This doesn't mean they are wrong.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

W.r.t. Taivo's comment above: a couple of minor corrections and remarks. While I indeed saw some merit in Sorabino's position, I asked him to bring some references.[125] WP:TLDR (TLTR is presumably a typo) was my reaction to the rest of the discussion at Talk:Croatian_language#Croatian, and the discussion at Serbo-Croatian proved to be no better: endless walls of text - largely mutual recriminations - which make it rather difficult for other editors to even follow the discussion, let alone join it. I took no further part in the discussion, yes, but it's been just three days, and this issue is too complex and cannot be properly analyzed in half an hour; after all, we all have other stuff to do besides Wikipedia.

I don't think this is a matter for WP:ANI. It is a bona fide - if somewhat messy - content dispute, perhaps best resolved through WP:RfC - at least that would be my recommendation. GregorB (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@GregorB:, I certainly didn't intend to misrepresent your position so if I did not summarize accurately enough, I apologize. Your correction is, indeed, how I saw it as well.

And as a note, I did read the request above for diffs, but have not had the time to marshal them from a complex back and forth that actually spanned several Talk Pages before it was (thankfully) centralized at Talk:Serbo-Croatian. Sorabino seemed to be spamming the entire range of pages related to the Serbo-Croatian dialects with virtually identical comments. I eventually began to just copy and paste my responses from page to page. There is a lot of sorting to do. If this were a normal content dispute, I agree that this would not be a proper ANI. However, the nationalist call to arms is a behavioral problem as well as editing in the article against WP:CONSENSUS. The failure on his part to learn and to willfully ignore the details of linguistic science even after having them carefully explained to him is a content issue, of course, as well as his reliance on less-than-reliable sources and cherry-picking quotes out of context from otherwise reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all - as I said, these are minor corrections, mostly for the sake of clarity.

Failure of the discussion - in my opinion - lies in the fact that it got out of focus. To me, it was a bit hard to understand what (i.e. what exact change to the article) is being proposed. To editors less familiar with the topic, it is probably nigh impossible. GregorB (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

New claims of TaivoLinguist are 100% false. Administrators should be aware that user TaivoLinguist was policing and censoring those articles for a long time, covering his actions by claiming on many occasions that there is some kind of scholarly "consensus" on the "Serbo-Croatian" linguistic controversy, while it is common knowledge that such consensus does not exist, since all questions relating to that subject are constantly debated among scholars, who have several different views on the subject. To claim that there is any kind of consensus on that controversy is absurd, but user TaivoLinguist went even further, disregarding all scholarly sources that were showing the full scope of views on the subject, and he kept removing such content from the article, keeping the lead 100% one-sided. That is not constructive editing, as pointed out here. He is the only user who is opposing the introduction of balanced approach in the lead of Serbo-Croatian. Currently, believe it or not, the lead is representing only one, literally only one view on the entire "Serbo-Croatian" linguistic controversy. That is the core of this entire problem. User TaivoLinguist was constantly suppressing all scholarly content that was not in accordance with his POV, and I called him out for that. Its the only reason why we are here now. Sorabino (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The only reason you think that I'm the only editor who objects to your edits is because you have ignored the half-dozen others who have made comments in support of my efforts there. They are listed above for your reference if you're curious. --Taivo (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That is not true! You are the only user who is objecting to introduction of the full scope of scholarly views in the lead! There is not a single user in all those debates who claimed that lead should be kept one-sided, as it is now. You deleted neutral content with scholarly references, and you did it several times, stating "consensus" as an excuse, but such consensus does not exist. Your censoring of that article is in clear odds with editing guidelines. Sorabino (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that other editors have kept quiet for fear of becoming the target of your behaviour? It certainly applies to me. Your heavy-handedness and persistent personal attacks towards other editors made me stay away from the discussion. Rua (mew) 20:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You are inventing "personal attacks" narrative! Whom did I attack? How can you accuse me in such manner? You are now attacking me by accusing me of attacking users! What is your proof for such accusations? Sorabino (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Here are the comments that are directly related to the lead and what should be in it. The whole issue of what should and should not be in the lead hinges on WP:DUE and prominence.

• Uafala says no to ISO in lead.
• Vanjagenije says no to prominence of minority views and he states that my references clearly show that I am presenting the majority view.
• Surtsicna says that Sorabino doesn't understand the meaning of WP:DUE and I am the only one who is discussing science.

--Taivo (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Non of those users advocated for one-sided lead, and now you are misrepresenting their views on particular subjects! Why are you doing that? There is not a single user, except you, who was claiming that only one scholarly view should be presented in the lead! Sorabino (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't understand the meaning of WP:DUE. It means that no prominence should be afforded to any view that isn't a majority view. "Prominence" means that your entire paragraphs devoted to minority nationalistic views are not appropriate. If you actually read the third paragraph of the lead as it currently stands you will see that the last three sentences deal precisely with the nationalistic perceptions of the nature of the Serbo-Croatian language. That's all that it should require. You have also completely ignored the actual position of the majority of linguists. The linguistic point of view, as overtly expressed by Ronelle Alexander in her sociolinguistic commentary, says that there is one language when measured in linguistic terms only. She then goes on to call the "three-language option" the symbolic point of view that is not based on the science of linguistics, but on politics and other factors. The lead of a language article should always give prominence to the linguistic issues, not the political and symbolic ones. I have never opposed the addition of a MINOR note on the political viewpoint which is the only one that you know anything about (and apparently the only one you care to know anything about because of your constant appeals to nationalism). But I have opposed (and will continue to oppose) the paragraph-long comments that include the entire range of political views from the sublime to the ridiculous. It's about WP:DUE, not about national pride. --Taivo (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Taivo, some editors are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and it shows when edits done by them are WP:TENDENTIOUS.Resnjari (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) In fact, at different points in the discussion I have asked you [Sorabino] to propose a sentence or two that could be added to the lead. You have either ignored the request or inserted one or two paragraphs into the lead. A sentence or two is all that is warranted. A paragraph or two is a violation of WP:DUE. --Taivo (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Man, you are inventing stuff and wasting everyone's time here. I was never advocating "nationalist" view for the lead, as you falsely claim here in front of entire community! I was advocating 100% neutral addition to the lead, that literaly goes like this, with additional scholarly references: "Several questions regarding the linguistic nature and classification of Serbo-Croatian have been the subject of long-standing debates and disputes. Within the scholarly scope of Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy, there is a wide spectrum of different views and opinions regarding the question whether Serbo-Croatian comprises a single language, or a cluster of closely related, but separate and distinctive languages. Current linguistic views on those subjects are spanning from the notion that Serbo-Croatian still exist as a unified language, up to the notion that it never really existed as such, with majority of views falling somewhere in between those two opposite poles". You are the one who are deleting that, and suppressing other views. That entire question should be resolved here, ass you know, but in spite of that you are continuing to mislead people here. Sorabino (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In other words way too much undue, non-linguistic politics since the linguistic consensus is not what you just wrote. But you're just retracing the same old nationalistic steps that got us here in the first place. You're not learning linguistics, you're not learning the meaning of WP:DUE, you're not learning the difference between the linguistic definition of "Serbo-Croatian" and your political non-linguistic labeling. --Taivo (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, I have started an essay at WP:NATIONALIST about single purpose accounts and POV-pushing relating to nationalism that other editors may wish to contribute to. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Every editor involved with this content dispute really needs to understand that this noticeboard simply does not adjudicate content disputes, and so all the words and electrons you expend debating the content dispute here are completely wasted, and going on and on and on about the details of the content dispute just make each and every one of you look bad. This noticeboard deals with behavioral issues not content disputes. I identified what I perceived as overt appeals to national identity by Sorabino, who claims to be "quite surprised" by my interpretation of their words which I read as nationalistic. Perhaps that editor's judgment is clouded by Serbian nationalism. I happen to be an American editor and if I was involved in a content dispute with editors from the UK about the War of 1812, a conflict that led to the British sacking Washington, DC and burning the White House, and I then appealed to an American administrator to side with me on the content dispute because we are both Americans - well, I think that I would be deserving of harsh condemnation. And I would never ever engage in such nationalistic behavior. So, my opinion is that you should apologize for your behavior, Sorabino, and abandon that kind of nationalistic behavior going forward. Do any editors uninvolved in Balkan disputes disagree with me? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328: Wow man! Thank you for your post, because it is clear now that you got it wrong 100% on that edit of mine, so I have to repeat it, and then explain to you where you made a fundamental error in judgement. This is the edit: "Why are you supporting user TaivoLinguist who is openly advocating against the full scope of modern Croatian language, most recently in talk pages of several articles, like "here" and "here"? You are very well aware that for several years now he is trying to reduce Croatian language to Štokavian variant only, by claiming that Čakavian and Kajkavian variants do not belong within the scope of modern Croatian language. But, those are his views. On the other hand, you are an administrator, from Serbia, and that gives you additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues that are so frequently debated in relation to politics, history and language. Whatever your personal views are, it is not proper for an administrator from Serbia to side with someone who is openly denying the full scope of Croatian language. That looks very bad for all of us, and I am pointing that out as an ethnic Serb from Serbia. So, please, do not use your authority as an administrator to support or empower such radical views". And here is your error. Yous said above: "I happen to be an American editor and if I was involved in a content dispute with editors from the UK about the War of 1812, a conflict that led to the British sacking Washington, DC and burning the White House, and I then appealed to an American administrator to side with me on the content dispute because we are both Americans - well, I think that I would be deserving of harsh condemnation". You are 100% right there! Yes, right - not wrong, because such behavior would be totally improper on all accounts. And let me apply that to the case that was the subject of my edit, and that is the question of the full scope of Croatian language. I will paraphrase your conclusion and say: I happen to be a Serbian editor and if I was involved in a content dispute with editors from Croatia about the full scope of Croatian language, a subject that is often debated between Serbs and Croats, and I then appealed to a Serbian administrator to side with me on the content dispute because we are both Serbians - well, I think that I would be deserving of harsh condemnation! That is how your objections would apply here, but alas, non of that really happened! In the debate on the full scope of the Croatian language I, as a Serbian user, was not involved in any kind of dispute with any Croatian user! It was non-Croatian user TaivoLinguist, who denied the full scope of Croatian language on several occasions, like here and here. He was claiming that Čakavian and Kajkavian variants are not part of Croatian language, while I was claiming in three separate debates that those variants do belong within the full scope of modern Croatian language. So, my stand was, so to say, very pro-Croatian! And on several occasions, I was labeled by TaivoLinguist as "nationalist" for my pro-Croatian stand in this debate. That is the main reason why I was compelled to emphasize that I am Serbian. When I saw that administrator Vanjagenije, who is also Serbian like me, started to support user TaivoLinguist on some issues, I decided to tell him to be mindful on the sensitivity of the issues related to Croatian language, because - and here is a very important thing, all those sensitive subjects within the Balkan scope fall under discretionary sanctions! That is why I was mentioning "additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues that are so frequently debated in relation to politics, history and language" in my edit! Therefore, I did not, as your conclusions would imply, ask another Serbian user to side with me in some debate with Croatian users on the full scope of Croatian language, since I debated a non-Croatian user TaivoLinguist, and in that debate my stand was 100% pro-Croatian! So, you got it wrong on all accounts, because it seems that you did not take the trouble to analze the facts, but still you passed the judgement, that was, simply speaking, not based on facts. I apologize because this edit of mine is to long, but I had to defend myself from false conclusions and unfounded accusations. Sorabino (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sorabino: So you were not saying to the admin: "side with me against a Croatian because we're both Serbian." Rather, you were saying, "don't side with this non-Croatian against Croatians because you're Serbian and that makes all Serbians look bad, I would know, I'm Serbian, too." Do I have that right? ^Leviv_ich 08:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich:, you are continuing to create constructions, and I really do not understand why? It is 100% clear what I said, referring to to TaivoLinguist on the subject, without any mention of his nationality in my edit, so please, stop with your constructions! The only reason why I reminded user Vanjagenije that he, as an administrator from Serbia, has "additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues that are so frequently debated in relation to politics, history and language" is because we all know very well that all subjects within the Balkan scope fall under discretionary sanctions, and therefore we should be mindful of any action that could be potentially controversial, like the subject in question (the scope of Croatian language). And that's it. Your constructions are your own, having nothing to do with my edit. Sorabino (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, Cullen328, Taivo, the user in question has a bit of a relevant history of canvassing based on nationality on hot topics. See here where he canvassed on Serbian wikipedia regarding an English wiki RfC (example : [[126]]), presenting the other side as a "group of Albanian users" (група албанских корисника) in fact quite false -- only a minority were Albanian and many weren't even from the Balkans. This was after he had already been warned about canvassing, and resulted in a temporary block. If it appears that he has again been canvassing (an admin nonetheless) based on nationality, then that is quite disappointing... --Calthinus (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This exchange, from Talk:Croatian language is revealing about how deeply nationalism drives User:Sorabino's attitude toward Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

That is not true, since it was you who for some reason introduced Ukraine-Russia conflict into the debate on Croatian language, making unfounded analogies, and I had to respond to that and point out that you are in error, and that you are just projecting Ukraine-Russia situation on the Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy. Everyone can read that exchange and see that there was nothing innapropriate there. Sorabino (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding @Sorabino: Apart from other issues @Sorabino keeps referring to editors and administrators in ethno terms like Serbian and Croatian instead of focusing on the topic and not the (perceived) ethnic background or identity of Wikipedia participants. @Sorabino is not here to build this encyclopedia and this circus on Balkan topics will continue. @Sorabino in the past has been sanctioned for similar behavior and as we are here again appears not to have learned any lessons. Its time for something substantive. I propose a WP:TOPICBAN for @Sorabino from all Balkan topics (covered under WP:ARBMAC). Maybe a period of time from not editing Balkan topics will make the editor change their behavior and ways.Resnjari (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would like to thank user Resnjari for turning this into a witch-hunt. No further comment is needed on his allegations against me, since those allegations are not based on any facts. Sorabino (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"Witchhunt"? Casting WP:ASPERSIONS again. Just goes to show further why @Sorabino is not here to build an encyclopedia.Resnjari (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Since user TaivoLinguist is accusing me of "nationalism", here is a prime example of totally inappropriate national labeling, made by user TaivoLinguist in the debate on Croatian language. In order to show that many prominent linguists are advocating balanced approach to all controversial issues regarding Serbo-Croatian language, I quoted famous linguist Wayles Browne, from his article in Encyclopædia Britannica. That single quote obliterated users TaivoLinguist claim that there is some kind of "consensus" on Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy, and he tried to undermine the authority of Wayles Browne's by labeling him as Croatian linguist (here). I was stunned by that comment, since Wayles Browne is an American linguist, with global reputation as an expert in South Slavic languages, and I tried to correct user TaivoLinguist, but he stood his ground, trying to justify his labeling by stating that Browne's education was partially at the University of Zagreb (here). This is the prime example of attempted discrediting of a person by the use of a national labeling, that was not only inappropriate, but also misleading, since it was factually wrong. That is the real face of my accuser here. Sorabino (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• content dispute, perhaps best resolved through WP:RfC I agree with this conclusion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not a content dispute - the Talk Pages for the Balkan language Serbo-Croation clearly have a header demonstrating what S-C is and why it will be used on Wiki. Nationalists are constantly trying to get around this by incremental tweaks and "sneak-ins" on that article and the standardized-language articles. Taivo (and others) were quite correct in pointing out this editor's misuse of editing here. 50.111.22.143 (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

@Antidiskriminator:. User:HammerFilmFan is quite right. This is not a content dispute at its core. At the top of Talk:Serbo-Croatian, prominently displayed in a white box, is the notice: "In English, the language spoken by Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins is generally called "Serbo-Croat(ian)". Use of that term in English, which dates back at least to 1864 and was modeled on both Croatian and Serbian nationalists of the time, is not a political endorsement of Yugoslavia, but is simply a label. As long as it remains the common name of the language in English, it will continue to be used here on Wikipedia." It is part of the warning box that all editors of the page must abide by. One of the jobs of administrators is to protect the encyclopedia from editors like Sorabino, who push their monochromatic nationalist agenda based on quotes cherry-picked out of context from Google Books searches, know nothing about the science underlying the topic, and refuse to read dissenting and better reliable sources even when that reliable source is one of the ones they cherry-picked an out-of-context quote from. It's not a content dispute, it's the behavior of a nationalist POV-pusher (evidenced by his using nationalistic jingoism to try to recruit User:Vanjagenije to his cause). --Taivo (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Claims of TaivoLinguist are 100 % false, on all accounts. There is not a single edit of mine in the article Serbo-Croatian that could be labeled as "nationalist" or in any way contrary to editing rules or guidelines. So far, in all of this discussion, my accuser did not produce a single edit of mine that would prove his claims. In fact, user TaivoLinguist is the one who is using national labels as tool of discrediting people, as shown above, and his negative attitude towards people from the region of former Yugoslavia is noticed by other users too, as can be seen from the histories of the relevant talk pages. From the very beginning, I was advocating introduction of the full scope of scholarly views in the article, while he was placing labels on people. I urge administrators to take a look at recent developments related to Serbo-Croatian and related articles, since it is clear that serious talks should be initiated on the community level regarding systematic suppression of the full scope of scholarly vies on those subjects by users like TaivoLinguist. History of this users talk page is quite revealing, with several warnings related to these particular subjects. +Sorabino (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note to administrators. Some users, who are self-declared linguists and advocates of Serbo-Croatian as a single language, might be using Wikipedia for goals that are in odds with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Within academia, there is an ongoing debate regarding structural organization of departments and programs related to the study of South-Slavic languages. In recent decades, there were many changes in the field. It seems that advocates of a single Serbo-Croatian language are in full retreat within academia, particularly in English-speaking world, because many scholarly and educational institutions are no longer providing degrees in "Serbo-Croatian" as a single language. It has become a dominant practice within academia to cluster several individual, but closely related languages (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian) into joint BCMS programs, that are combining specialization in one of those languages and comparative studies of others. That is the reality of modern scholarship in this field of study. And yet, here on Wikipedia, some users who self-declared linguists, are constantly policing and censoring relevant articles, suppressing full scope of views, insisting on the sole validity of their definition of "Serbo-Croatian", and dismissing all other views by labeling people. It is time for a full-scale policy-discussion on the entire cluster of articles related to BCMS languages. Sorabino (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin who keeps a weather eye out on Balkan issues, I have to say this has already used up far too much space at ANI with all the above argy-bargy. While I agree with Cullen328 about the attempt to garner support from an admin based on ethnicity, this is, at its core, a content dispute, as GregorB has accurately pointed out (and surprisingly, I agree with Antidiskriminator on something for once). A neutrally-worded RfC or two is the way to deal with it. The opposing sides will just have to accept the consensus that hopefully results from such RfCs. If they do not, and continue edit-warring about it, then that may be a matter for ANI or another relevant drama board. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, you got it wrong too, as did Cullen328, who made totally unfounded analogies, as shown above. I was not trying to garner support from an admin based on ethnicity or in any other way, as can bee seen here. That edit of mine shows how much in odds were our views on the subject in question, and that is why I asked him for additional explanations in my "incriminated" edit, reminding him of sensitivity of all issues regarding all regional controversies. His support for the user TaivoLinguist, who was denying the full scope of Croatian language was the subject in question, not the nationality of any user. Sorabino (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the administrators don't want to deal with this behavioral issue, this thread can be closed. --Taivo (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorabino is welcome, of course, to provide actual evidence (instead of unsupported assertions) that I have offered "totally unfounded analogies" regarding that editor's behavior. Note that I never said that I would back a pro-American analysis of a hypothetical content dispute about the War of 1812. Perhaps in such a hypothetical scenario, I might well advocate the position of many British historians that this conflict was a minor front in the Napoleonic Wars, rather than a genuine full-blown war, certainly a reasonable viewpoint in many ways. If I solicited support for my preferred content based on the ethnicity of other editors, insisting that an American administrator back me because of our shared ethnic/citizenship identity, that would be unacceptably nationalistic. That is what Sorabino did. Note also, that I never mentioned Croatians. He did. In this debate, Sorabino assumes I will take a certain hypothetical stance because I am an American, and assumes that I am thinking of Croatians when I never even mentioned or alluded to Croatians. These are indicators of a nationalistic point of view when editing, and that is why I must "Support" a topic ban from Balkans conflicts, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 10:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 your entire conclusion is 100% fictional construction, as shown above! Can you provide any edit of mine related to article in question or any other related article that would be a violation of any Wikipedia rule? On what grounds are you advocating sanctions against me? State some facts, for a change. And I did not make any "assumptions" on your nationality or your attitude towards any other nationality, you made that up 100%, that is clear as a day! Sorabino (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Readers of this thread should note how many times Sorabino has categorically stated that another editor's comment is "100% false/fictional/wrong/etc." without a shred of evidence either to prove the error or to support his own position. Exaggeration is a classic indicator of an editor with an axe to grind or a nationalistic agenda to pursue. This exaggeration includes falsely stating how "famous" or "influential" the author of a particular quote is or overstating the importance of another source by falsely claiming that it's "official". --Taivo (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

From the very beginning of this discussion, no one has produced a single edit of mine, regarding the article in subject (or any other related article) that would go against Wikipedia editing rules. Some users have even mentioned a topic ban, but without stating a single violation of content, or problematic editing of mine! All this talk and time was spent here, with 100% lack of any factual backing for accusations against me. On the other hand, I showed that it was my accuser TaivoLinguist who was trying to discredit people by misuse of national labeling (here). Administrators should take a good look at his long-time policing and censoring of articles related to Serbo-Croatian, and BCMS languages in general, not to mention all those warnings on that users talk page, and various conflicts he had with several other editors on the same subjects during past few years. Something is going on there, and all those articles are greatly affected by such behavior. Sorabino (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Its why TaivoLinguist i proposed a topic ban for @Sorabino from all Balkan topics otherwise this circus continues as the editor repeatedly shows they are not here to build an encyclopedia via their editing and so on.Resnjari (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorabino exaggerating the importance of an unreliable source: [127] (ISO as "official"). Sorabino exaggerating here again, referring to "the entire linguistic team" of ISO 639-3 when he knows nothing about the ISO process (there is no "entire linguistic team", the changes are made by recommendations from linguists outside the organization then based on consultations with "interested parties"). Using Encyclopedia Britannica as a definitive source here.

Sorabino stating "100% wrong/false/etc.": "Not a single source has been produced" here even though there is a list of a half dozen reliable sources from one of my previous comments to him. "You have been proven wrong that such a thing does not exist" here. "All of your claims have been proven wrong" here. Vanjagenije states that I am right here. (This is the administrator that Sorabino later tries to lay a guilt trip on to support him for purely nationalistic reasons listed previously and again below.)

Sorabino exaggerating the qualification of a specialist: Calling the author of an Encyclopedia Britannica article a "top class linguist" here (he's not that well known outside Slavic circles).

Sorabino claiming suppression: here, here, here, here. Sorabino attempting to recruit User:Vanjagenije for purely nationalistic reasons: here even though he had criticized Vanjagenije for nationalism here. More righting great wrongs here

Sorabino claiming ignorance of things that have already been written: here, here

That takes me up to 1 February, but the pattern continues throughout the remainder the thread. Sorabino isn't here to improve Wikipedia, but to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by exaggeration, by WP:IDHT, by nationalist WP:CANVASSING (with Vanjagenije), etc. --Taivo (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This is becoming totally pointless. I urge administrators to take a look at each of those edits, and compare their real content with misrepresentations of my accuser here. Non of those edits of mine is in odds with editing guidelines, on the contrary - I was advocating full scope view on the subject, backed with scholarly references, while my accuser was constantly suppressing referenced content. Just take a look at his comment that I "had criticized Vanjagenije for nationalism" and compare that with the real content of that edit. It has become clear for some time now that real problem here lies with my accuser and his attitude towards articles related to BCMS languages in general. I called him out on relevant talk pages, other users criticized him too, and he picked on me - that is how we ended here. Sorabino (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

In other words, Sorabino is determined to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as he perceives them, and practices WP:IDHT whenever I present him with actual linguistic facts and reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I think, based on what I personally have seen of the past editing on these issues, that Sorabino will not be able to get past his nationalist POV to be much help in improving articles where ethnic hatreds based upon the atrocities committed in the Yugoslav wars have not yet died out. Hopefully, in 50 years, this sort of thing will be mostly gone. Today, Admins are going to have to take this into account. Maybe a short (4 weeks?) topic-ban as a 'warning' will curb the passions and allow the stability of these articles - that have been attained after many a long disruption over the years - to stay intact.50.111.22.143 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This is absurd, the user is implying ethnic hatreds based upon the atrocities committed in the Yugoslav wars! I was never involved in any dispute related to Yugoslav wars, nor did I take special interest in editing related articles. So, what would be the basis for the proposed topic ban? My non-involvement in those issues? I have to repeat: in the dispute on Serbo-Croatian I was advocating the full scope of the Croatian language, while my accuser was denying that. In other words, my position on the subject was quite pro-Croatian, and since I am a Serbian that shows that I am not burdened with regional animosities. Sorabino (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is functionally a content dispute on a contentious issue. If it were up to me, I'd close this word soup, start an RfC on the article's talk page to see if there's any consensus for the change, make a general warning on any interactions between Sorabino and TaivoLinguist at the RfC (ie state your opinion and then unwatch the discussion) and come back to ANI if Sorabino disrupts the RfC in any way. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

User:SportingFlyer, that's not a bad idea in theory, but we have to avoid the "regular" RfC based on nationalist disruption. If we had an RfC every time that a Ukrainian wanted to force renaming Kiev to "Kyiv", or that a Greek wanted to force renaming Republic of Macedonia to "FYROM" we'd be in RfCs constantly. The issue was decided in the past, hence the note in the header section at Talk:Serbo-Croatian. Sorabino is here simply because he refuses to accept WP:CONSENSUS and the evidence for both a scientific consensus and a Wikipedia consensus. Do we reward the persistent nationalist? I'm not basically opposed to an RfC, but thinking it might cause more problems than it would solve. IMHO. --Taivo (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: Eh, the content dispute to me seems relatively narrow. This is a very awkward topic, especially since my assumption is most current contemporary sources wouldn't use Serbo-Croatian as a term (outside, possibly, the linguistics community - I have no idea about that one.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I urged several times for a full-scale review of article on Serbo-Croatian and related articles on BCMS languages, since there is no scholarly WP:CONSENSUS on that subject. Claims of user TaivoLinguist that there is some kind of "consensus" on that subject are fictional, since it is common knowledge that the entire field is South-Slavic languages and their classification is subjected to linguistic debates among scholars. As I stated above, academic world is dropping the "Serbo-Croatian" label, by large in English speaking world, no one is getting degrees in "Serbo-Croatian" anymore, studies are focused on particular BCMS languages, combined with comparative approach. That is the reality of the subject, but contrary to that, user TaivoLinguist continued to advocate only one view, policing articles, suppressing content on the full scope of views, and labeling people as "nationalist" just because they are pointing to current problems regarding all those articles. And now he states: we have to avoid the "regular" RfC based on nationalist disruption! No further comment is needed there. Sorabino (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

As usual, Sorabino completely confuses the issue because he is not a linguist and views this only as a political question. The issue is not the label "Serbo-Croatian", although that is still the most common label for the single pluricentric language that includes the dialects Chakavian and Shtokavian. The standardized languages Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are all subdialects of the Shtokavian dialect. That is, indeed, a linguistic and Wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS. All these Shtokavian forms are almost entirely mutually intelligible and therefore constitute a language in the linguistic sense. There is no linguistic debate on the mutual intelligibility of these dialects (references at Talk:Serbo-Croatian) except for Chakavian, which might be considered a separate language. Sorabino confuses the political anti-Yugoslavian landscape and refuses to recognize the linguistic one. That is the problem here. Sorabino wants to reshape the article to reflect political considerations rather than linguistic ones. --Taivo (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sorabino...there is an old Wikipedia consensus. There are people who enforce it on your edits, and there is only one solution that can lead to a desirable outcome(for you). WP:Consensus can change. Make a RfC if you think the old consensus is outdated, with a neutral question. Present your arguments to change, look at the responses, and discuss with valid arguments. Do not try to force something through by editing articles contrary to established guidelines when others tell you to stop.

User:TaivoLinguist, you can't stop others from making a RfC to evaluate consensus. The closer should take nationalist based reasoning into account by giving those votes no weight.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

User TaivoLinguist continues to misrepresent my views and actions, but that is of no importance, since editing histories of all those articles are showing that I was only trying to add referenced content on the full scope of scholarly views into those articles. More important problem here is that user TaivoLinguist also continues to misrepresent WP:CONSENSUS on the subject, since there never was any "consensus" in favor of systematic suppression of all additions that would inform readers of the full scope of scholarly views on all those subjects. That problem was indicated by several users during past few years, but all objections to one-sidedness of content were suppressed, and problems continued to grow. Since the very term "Serbo-Croatian" is destined to migrate into linguistic history, it would be best to separate two subjects. Article Serbo-Croatian should be reduced to the historical "Serbo-Croatian" linguistic phenomenon, that existed during the 19th and 20th century, while on the other hand we should create a separate and very much needed article on modern BCSM languages, that would reflect current linguistic situation and academic reality that exists in modern scholarly studies of the field. Those two subjects, former "Serbo-Croatian" linguistic phenomenon, and present situation of BCMS languages, should be separated. That would solve many problems, and open new space for future development. Sorabino (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The only reason that Sorabino thinks I misrepresent his views is that I am dealing with actual linguistics and an existing WP:CONSENSUS. He has misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia and the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS, thinking that he can insert his POV into the article by the sheer force of his self-righteous nationalism. I understand him perfectly and have stated the actual nature of his views because I have seen his kind in Wikipedia a hundred times before. I have the full weight WP:CONSENSUS behind me. It is his responsibility to create a neutral RfC. He is right in one regard--this article should be split into two--one that deals only with the Yugoslav standard called "Serbo-Croatian" and one that deals the single language (per linguistic consensus) that deals with the dialect complex that includes Chakavian and Shtokavian (and used to include Kajkavian). Right now that single language is commonly called "Serbo-Croatian" by linguists, but we can judge WP:COMMONNAME by a survey of reliable sources if the Wikipedia community agrees to splitting the content into two articles. --Taivo (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please. @Sorabino:: the language is still functionally Serbo-Croatian, and there's tons of linguistic literature showing it's one language. The "four distinct languages" is a political situation, not a language situation. If you want to add specific commentary on what's currently in the article that's ultimately contentious, put it in an RfC on a talk page and be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion if it doesn't go your way. From a purely linguistic point of view, your viewpoint will almost certainly will not be accepted. @TaivoLinguist:: You're not wrong, but you also don't WP:OWN the article. There's a pointy op-ed in a WP:RS from October from a major Croatian newspaper lamenting the fact Croatian communities are now being forced to use Bosnian, even though the Bosnian government literally switched out one word on all of the government buildings. There is a political reality here all four countries are trying to claim the language as their own, and while I think the article does a good job of explaining this, I don't see anything wrong with a neutral RfC to discuss the modern difficulties of this viewpoint if something needs to be added to the article. If the RfC isn't actually neutral, have confidence you have the weight of consensus behind you. And please, for all of our sakes, stop responding to each other. This word soup has changed absolutely nothing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Motion to close

• The above thread has expended far too much verbiage on the content of the dispute and too little on the conduct of disputants to be actionable. Currently it exceeds 10,000 words total. Simply put, this is tl;dc (too long; don't care). I propose that it be closed without action and with an instruction to the disputants to conduct an RfC at the article talk page. If there is a repeat of whatever behaviour is being alleged then I suggest it be taken to WP:AE. That venue is better suited for this as statements must be succinct and supported with appropriate diffs. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I'm not sure there was ever anything actionable anyways, just a spillover of the dispute. SportingFlyer T·C 00:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Nothing productive will come from keeping this open. ^Leviv_ich 01:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support There was a behavioral issue early on, but it got buried and I'm partly to blame. If User:Sorabino wants to initiate an RfC, I have no objections. --Taivo (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The takeaway from all this should be the following: editors should focus on content and process - establishing consensus in particular - and not on other editors' behavior or background. GregorB (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neither for against closure - Personally i think this report should have been taken to an WP:AE as things got muddled and behavioral issues where not properly addressed regarding @Sorabino and if it transpires again it should be taken there.Resnjari (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

For Britain Page

The above page is described as "far right" its classification by the electoral commission is center right we have tried to change this as the electoral commission is the definitive source but it keeps getting changed back, Secondly all references from hope not hate, and stand up to racism are not valid as they are lead by senior members of the Labour party and are extremist organisations. and should be removed , they keep getting put back, . It is like the Tory party editing another party's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by KEVIN J BRACK (talk • contribs) 10:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute and your account has not made any attempts to discuss this at Talk:For Britain, that is the place to start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the right place for this discussion, but must point out that the Electoral Commission makes no such determination of any party's political position. You'll have to give a truthful argument at Talk:For Britain if you want to get anywhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Have to say I'm not British and have never been to the UK in my life and don't follow their politics that closely. But when I read the above, I was fairly sure that it was wrong, as there was no way that the UK electoral commission would ever classify a party's politicial position. What this means for someone who lives in the UK or is involved in their politics and didn't know this, I offer no comment. Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. KEVIN J BRACK says "we" have tried to change the far-right designation (in the infobox I assume). Putting aside the "we", I don't see any attempt to do that by KJB or anyone else recently.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the most recent attempt to change this on the article directly was via this edit war back in September [128] [129]. But there have also been plenty of discussions and requests on the talk page, the most recent is this one just under a month ago [130] then this one a few days before [131] then this one a few days before that [132]. (Nothing before then until around the time of the last edit war.) I don't know which attempt is being referred to, but I assume KJB's statement means they are involved off-wiki with the party or supporters in some way. Someone has already given them a COI warning. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems pretty certain that Kevin J Brack is involved with For Britain: [[REDACTED - Oshwah]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lard Almighty (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if we're missing the forest from the trees here. The OP said "all references from hope not hate". That's interesting because this discussion Talk:For Britain#Is Hope Not Hate considered a reliable source? was started by User:The Kingfisher who is blocked as a sock of User:NoCal100. The commenting style on the talk page doesn't really seem the same but is anyone familiar with the master able to comment on whether this is another likely match? Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Had a quick look at the SPI and the sock seems mostly active on the ARBPIA area so I suspect this is a false positive. Apologies. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

North Italy IPs making changes to music personnel

Since March 2017, somone using IPs from northern areas of Italy has been making wrong changes to the personnel sections of album and song articles. The IP range is Special:Contributions/213.213.29.115/21. The person quickly edits a bunch of articles in a row, often changing instruments to be different than those listed in sources. Obviously, the person is not looking at the sources – they're just shooting from the hip – and more importantly, the person doesn't understand music terminology.

One example is the complete removal of the baritone saxophones in this edit, contradicting the cited source which is AllMusic, and which confirms the two baritone saxes.

Another disruptive behavior is the changing of organ types, removing them or replacing them incorrectly with Hammond organs. Here's a removal of Wurlitzer, a generic organ becoming a Hammond, a change from Wurlitzer to Fender, a removal of Wurlitzer and the footnote, a change from Wurlitzer to Fender and Hammond, changing a steel drum player to just another drummer and a removal of Wurlitzer.

Despite lots of warnings, the person has not communicated at all via edit summary or talk page. Last August, one of the IPs was blocked. I think it's time for another block to protect against further mistakes. Binksternet (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• An Organ Brand Vandal would give our Ceiling Fan Vandal a run for the money in the Most Weirdly Obscure Vandal category. EEng 17:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Uncivil and threatening comments by User:Moylesy98

this looks unnaceptable to me.Charles (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• What I hadn't realised previously (obvious, but I just hadn't looked) is that the YouTube videos which Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) is persistently adding to WP articles aren't just random finds on YouTube, they're actually links to his own channel.

We have a long-standing problem with Moylesy doing trivial and non-encyclopedic additions to WP, which aren't specifically against policy but that are getting very close to WP:NOTDIR. They've often been described as "trainspotting", certainly the short term stuff, not the long-term encyclopedic content, i.e. "Loco 1234 has completed a ten year overhaul and is now back in service on the East Sodor Railway, here's a video". It's debatable whether this should be on WP or not, but it's certainly not the core function of WP.

If this has got to the point though where it's all related to one YouTube channel (and I've not checked), then I see this as a worse problem and into promotional use of WP, which we're definitely against. I'm happy for someone to make a case justifying it - there are plenty of film archives where we see their content as so valuable that we're happy to have any use of it which we can get. But is that the case here?

Given the problems noted, and given the unending difficulty of getting Moylesy to understand some of the basics of how WP needs to operate (see the talk: page), I'm now thinking a topic ban (WP:TBAN) on any addition of YouTube links is due. This wouldn't exclude anyone else adding or keeping them, if the link is thought objectively worthwhile, but the process of adding them seems to be causing far more trouble than its benefit. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Some diffs please? Paul August ☎ 14:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Talk and Contribs will do it. Just from their last few edits today (the same event, mirrored across a number of articles):

1. West Coast Railways A single loco move, in an article on an operating company with a number of locos
2. Rolling stock of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway A preservation status update
3. LMS Jubilee Class 5596 Bahamas The same update
4. LMS Jubilee Class same relocation, this time on the loco class article
5. LMS Jubilee Class 5596 Bahamas do we really need day by day updates?

I would see this update as pretty relevant on the individual loco article (it's an article on the preservation and history of that loco) but elsewhere it's tenuous. The class article is a technical and historical review of what these locos were for. It should note those which are preserved, even where they're preserved, so that they may be seen in action. But we are not here (NOTNEWS and NOTDIR) to replace the monthly steam magazine press. It's inherent in the nature of preservation that it's a dynamic process: locos come and go in and out of service. To what level should we record this? Now I'm much less against this than some other editors are hereabouts: if we list locos as being preserved, and that changes, then yes, we need an update. I see it as something I wouldn't do myself, but I'm not against others doing it. However there have been past problems (see talk:) for issue of sourcing and weight. We shouldn't be doing this if that involves skipping the other requirements on WP:V etc.

There are questions of weight: SR Merchant Navy Class 35018 British India Line is what has been described as "train spotting" by other editors (and again, I've not been the person most against this). I can't see how this information gets past UNDUE, even in the article on the individual preserved loco. We do care (in "modern railway preservation in the UK") that steam specials are back-ended by a more modern diesel loco. We do care, in the individual loco articles, when it returned to service and what route was used for their premier trip (Shap is a famous and difficult line - a brave choice for a first outing). We might even care that this special was back-ended by an electric loco, nearly as old as some of the steam locos. But do we really care to know which loco was the backup, and where on the line they changed roles? Especially not if this is going in unsourced.

For the videos, I'm more concerned. SR Merchant Navy Class 35018 British India Line. I don't know who "SAYFILMPRODUCTIONS" are, but I'm assuming David Moyle is Moylesy98 and my tolerance for "adding stuff I wouldn't bother to add myself" gets very thin when it starts to look like self-promotion of off-wiki assets.

I had a run in with them a couple of weeks back ANEW, because they didn't understand WP:REDLINK and preferred to edit-war over it. Again, no big deal (I'm not the one getting regularly wound up here), but it does show that they're just expecting WP to work on their terms, not to find out what the ground rules for all of us on WP are and stick by them. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I would certainly consider those additions trainspotting and unencyclopedic. Mackensen (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there further a copyright problem for linking given on [133] "All content in this video is © & ℗ of David Moyle, Moylesy Productions & Mr Moyle's Photography and was shot by myself and nobody else. Re-use elsewhere is not permitted without my permission"?SovalValtos (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Why should a copyright claim in relation to a YouTube video be an issue? It isn't hosted on Wikipedia/Wikimedia servers, and if he shot the video, he almost certainly holds the copyright. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy which forbids citing/linking copyright material, and if there was, Wikipedia would have a great deal of difficulty finding sources to cite at all. I agree with others here that the videos probably shouldn't be linked, but because they are self-promotional, rather than over some imaginary copyright issue. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that. Linking a YouTube video that shows something definitively newsworthy is one thing, but adding a fairly unimportant section to an article and then linking your own video to that is, well, just no. I've been poking around the user's contribs and there are certainly issues; the history of West Coast Railways is certainly an issue, I've reverted some other dubious edits as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that adding an external link to a web page that contains media, images, or other content that's copyrighted by the apparent owner that's linking it to Wikipedia should be removed by principle, and mostly due to other issues, policies and guidelines (COI, OR, and others) - Hence I also agree that any references or links added by Moylesy98 to videos that he's created and uploaded to his YouTube channel should be removed and are not considered a reliable source.

To explain things by principle (since copyright is being mentioned here): It does not constitute a direct violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies to add external links to websites or web pages that contain media or text in violation of the original owner's copyright or license. Wikipedia's copyright policy page discusses situations regarding the direct upload and use of media and images to Wikipedia that are copyrighted and with an incompatible license, and the copy-and-paste (plagiarism) and close paraphrasing of text and content added to articles instead of paraphrasing them completely in one's own words. However... I think that a fair argument could be made in rebuttal that the spirit of the rule is being violated in cases such as (for example) users linking to external pages they created themselves that contain obvious violations of copyright by the original owner in order to circumvent policy. I'm not saying that this is what this user did, nor am I accusing the user of violating any copyright policies with any of the videos they've added saying that it's "self-created". I'm simply responding to clarify what the copyright policy contains in text and what it does not. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: it's not just against the spirit of the rules. It's explicitly forbidden by WP:ELNEVER and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works to intentionally link to content which appears to be hosted in violation of the copyright holder's copyright. The later says "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." If the person linking to it is the person who created the copyvio, this is in many ways even worse, although you're right this arises for other reasons. That said, is there actually any evidence of external copyvios here? If someone wants to make material and keep their copyright without releasing it under a free licence, they are entitled to do so elsewhere. We may or may not link to that material, and the person shouldn't add it to articles themselves, but it's not a copyvio issue unless the person has used material copyrighted by others without their permission (either explicit or implied by obeying any licence). If someone else copies that material elsewhere, then that is likely a copyvio issue. But all it means is we need to link to the original material if we find it useful rather than the unauthorised copy. Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne - Good call. I've stricken my comment appropriately. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

For almost three years I've come across this user, time and time again, using Wikipedia as a blog. This edit from earlier today is almost typical, although it shows two improvements in behaviour compared to six months ago: first is the use of "it's", which although ungrammatical, is better than "her" which Moylesy98 previously used universally; the second is the presence of a ref (which will go dead within a month). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Their talkpage is littered with warning notices, they seem not to use it (and article talkpages) to discuss issues and they've been blocked three times this year already! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• I left them a final warning about the spamming and a comment about their response to a concern about their spamming. I told them about this discussion. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim - Oops... I probably should have checked the user's talk page and history before doing what I did... because I responded to their borderline-threatening message and then left a note on Moylesy98's user talk page as well... Sorry if I stepped on any toes; I didn't mean to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Not at all. I haven't any toes to step on, you did what you thought best w/ information available, and your message reinforces the one I left. The concurrence of opinions makes the message stronger. They've edited since I messaged them but haven't responded. I do hope the problematic behavior stopped. I did ask them to drop by here. Not encouraged by their not doing so. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim - I appreciate the response. :-) Even if the user doesn't respond, it's fine... so long as the incivility doesn't continue and the user complies with Wikipedia's civility policy consistently from here on out, we have nothing to worry about. If it continues, we've warned the user clearly and appropriately and subsequent administrative action is justified and of their own doing. The ball's in his/her court; be respectful and civil toward others, or be prepared for sanctions and consequences. Simple as that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: In addition to the civility issue, there's also the "spamming" issue. Paul August ☎ 12:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul August - I agree, and I think that any and all external links added to articles by this user that are to videos or media the user uploaded externally themselves should be removed as unreliable at best, and original research at worst. Either way, they shouldn't be here at all and the user cannot add any more external links or references like this. Otherwise, I would endorse administrative action in order to prevent more disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No opinion on any other aspect of this matter, but so you're saying that, with respect to reliability or OR issues, it might be OK to link to a video uploaded by some random person we know nothing about (because we definitely do that sometimes) but never OK to link to a video apparently uploaded by one of our own editors? See WP:OI. EEng 03:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Since both halves of your statement are untrue, I'm going to go with "no". --Calton | Talk 06:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Examples of articles linking to videos uploaded by random persons we know nothing about are easily found: for example, search youtube in [134][135][136][137][138]. EEng 15:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Examples of articles linking to videos uploaded by random persons we know nothing about are easily found:

That's not what you claimed. You claimed it was "OK".

Part 2: You then claimed but never OK [emphasis mine] to link to a video apparently uploaded by one of our own editors? -- which I'd like to see evidence of -- which utterly ignores the the actual situation here (WP:COI ring a bell?).

All this so you can put together some sort of "gotcha" statement, with the goal of what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 14:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Calm yourself. I don't know what you mean about a "'gotcha' statement". I specifically said I was speaking only with respect to reliability or OR issues, which is what Oshwah was talking about, not COI. Links such as those I posted above are certainly acceptable per WP:EL, despite that we really don't know anything about who uploaded them. EEng 17:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz and R9tgokunks

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 someone(s) mind addressing the situation that's arisen at User talk:Nyttend#User Icewhiz and recurrant POV edit warring.? Yesterday afternoon my time, R9tgokunks raised allegations of misconduct by Icewhiz, there was a response, I responded to both, and they continued arguing all night long (my time zone); I had 14 talk page messages and an email when I got up. I was offline when the first messages came in, but I haven't said anything since. I can't understand why I was brought in at all (R9's only explanation sounds like flattery, you have seemed proactive and judicious). The focus is our article on John Hagee, who's said a lot of things on Israel-Palestine, and the discussion has spilled over into other Israel-Palestine issues. No other individuals have appeared. Also, R9 raised this issue at User talk:NeilN#Continued Wikihounding /POV edits. a while after coming to me, but before I was aware of the situation; it's not WP:ADMINSHOP. Nobody else participated there, except User:MarnetteD, who warned that this might be ADMINSHOP, and all I said there was responding to Marnette. Apparently NeilN participated in previous discussions between these two, but he last edited in October and hasn't done much of anything since August.

If desired, I can copy the arguments here, but the thread is already big enough I didn't want to do that without someone requesting it. I'd appreciate it if things were addressed here, so I don't have lots more appearances of orange You Have New Messages notices. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend - I apologize for over-responding on your talk-page - I probably should've ignored R9tgokunks‎ post on your page, and definitely shouldn't have continued responding. The dispute, seems to me like a content dispute (and a rehashing of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive229#R9tgokunks from April 2018 which seems to still cause tension). I reverted poorly sourced (and un-sourced) material from John Hagee (un-sourced stuff, stuff that was WP:OR on various religious texts, a press release from catholic.org that was used for statements of facts (and quotes) on a BLP that didn't issue the statement, etc.). There is a discussion at Talk:John Hagee#Recent edits which started after the back and forth on Nyttend's talk page (and the talk page is where the discussion should have begun) - and which is where this discussion should continue. Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

At this stage, I see a content dispute. I've left some notes at the TP, but basically it'd be useful if Icewhiz could explain his BLP concerns in detail rather than reverting large swathes because they contain some unspecified BLP problems, and if R9tgokunks could take BLP concerns seriously and in good faith. GoldenRing (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2019 (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.

Kuwait College of Science and Technology

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.

---

• 31.203.84.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Dan9055 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drmunir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drkvirk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Drkvirk originally created the Kuwait College of Science and Technology article, full of ad-speak. Various editors have tried to remove the promotional language, tag it with maintenance tags, etc., with edit-warring by Drkvirk, then Drmunir, and recently Dan9055, all of which appear to be WP:SPAs with WP:COI.

Some of the battling has been against an IP editor (80.164.111.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) who seems to have an axe to grind against the school. I sourced one of their edits, though, regarding an award by a vanity mill, and moved it down to an appropriate place, but had it reverted by Dan9055 without explanation. I reverted with explanation, but it was then removed again by 31.203.84.74. Details/diffs are at Talk:Kuwait College of Science and Technology#Award section, to which there has been no reply by the three users (who were pinged).

Aside from the SPA/COI/meat issue, should the info about the award remain, or is it WP:UNDUE? They were happy to advertise it until it got attention in their article here, after which they scrubbed it from their linkedIn page and even got one of the sources I cited to remove the pic from their article. It's not our job to expose such things, but neither is it our job to go along with a cover-up. I recognize that it's not exactly widely covered, which is why I'm on the fence. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to drop the fake award section (which I was on the fence about anyway), but would an admin please look at the seemingly obvious COI/MEAT issue? Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about the award section - that's content-related and I'll leave that to you to discuss and seek input on the article's talk page for help with that. I've semi-protected the article for two weeks in order to help combat the disruptive editing by anonymous users. Between the three accounts listed here, the only account that we can look into and consider (if applicable) any administrative action is Dan9055. The other two accounts haven't edited since 2017 and are much too stale for us to do anything with... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:44, 11 February 2019 (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:Saqib

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.

---

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

Could we have a short block for Saqib who is insisting on categorising Zareen Gul, a male politician [139] as a member of Category:Women members of the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa [140] [141] [142] with no discussion after being alerted to the issue [143] and then warned in no uncertain terms [144] and despite discussion on Talk:Zareen Gul [145]. Saqib has not entered into discussion of the issue at all. Life is too short for this crap. --Tagishsimon (talk)

OK my bad. I thought he's a female politician. --Saqib (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

So you thought that despite the article using "he" throughout [146] and people telling you in edit summaries multiple times [147] [148], and on the article talk page also [149], it was a good idea to get into an edit war over it [150] [151] [152]? Nil Einne (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the edit warring and the non discussion. Not so great. I thought better of you. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually could not fine a source on the page for the gender of this person. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the beard in the picture in the first reference is a bit of a give-away. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I see neither picture nor beard, though one would think. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It [153] also says "Mr." And I also see a picture with a beard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a block here. Maybe a big ole trout. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Saqib has been blocked in the past for edit warring, but it looks like this instance has stopped. So long as it does stop, I agree with a trout or stern warning and reminder about edit warring as opposed to blocking. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector blocked Saqib for a week after Saqib edit warred in a BLP in September 2018. Is this a recurring problem with this editor? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

EEEWWW. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And Dennis Brown before that. Sheesh. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: That link does not work for me. maybe after I get home. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment : I think Tagishsimon's post here at ANI certainly got Saqib's attention.( Sometimes the ANI notice does have beneficial result). That said, Saqib is a good contributor on Pakistani BIOs and I seek his advice regularly on Talk pages for Pakistan related topics for which I require feedback from a local. This Zareen Gul case was just a case of unfortunate misunderstanding (which he did not verify via refs). "Zareen" is a commonly used female Muslim name e.g. Zareen Khan (a popular film actress), so I have sympathy for Saqib here. This minor issue was aggravated by a lack of response to talk page messages. I think joining the talk page discussion or just reading it would have solved the issue. IMHO Saqib should be trouted for not joining the talk page, after getting reverted and the thread should be closed. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. Saqib has apologised above for this silly mistake, and is unlikely to repeat it, so a block would serve no purpose. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• (+1) He is one of the good folks over here and he deserves a big trout; nothing much else. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 11 February 2019 (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.

Post close of User:Saqib clarification from Ivanvector

• Responding to ping post-close: I blocked Saqib along with another editor who were both edit warring. It turned out after some enforced discussion that the other editor was a sockpuppet and Saqib's reverts were justified both under WP:BANREVERT and WP:BLPREMOVE. Edit warring is not ideal, but that incident shouldn't be taken as evidence of a pattern. Disputes in Pakistani politics topics are often not as straightforward as they might appear at a glance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Story Of Our Times, when even the handsome beard failed to save a man's honour --DBigXrayᗙ

• @Ivanvector: You are wrong with your explanation here. You had blocked Saqib for edit warring by violating WP:BLP,[154] and the person with whom he was edit warring, (Balochworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was not a sock but just a COI editor but more justified with his reverts. Also see the RfC where Saqib's edits were denied. Just like this, Saqib was also edit warring and violating WP:BLP on Usman Dar for which he was correctly warned.[155][156] 39.41.218.221 (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What I wrote is accurate, never mind the twisted facts from this probably-block-evading IP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't want to join you in this nonsense talk and anyone can decide what is "accurate" by viewing the article history and the links I linked above. 119.158.109.148 (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks for the info. And, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, FWIW, the beard link works on my home computer. And a handsome beard it is. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh it's a beard-off, is it? [157] Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Cannot unsee. Softlavender (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, shave ev'ry day and you'll always look keen. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Eddiehimself

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.

---

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

Special:Diff/882993540 after Special:Diff/869256947. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree - I assume that this ANI discussion you started here with just a username and two diffs listed is to report this user for incivility and for administrative action? Next time, lets add a description to the discussion so that others can quickly and easily understand the context of the matters at-hand so they can participate with responses and input. :-)

I've blocked the user account for 36 hours for repeated violations of Wikipedia's civility policy. The message he/she left on Domdeparis' user talk page was full of uncivil comments and personal attacks, and the user's follow-up edit to the GlaubeLiebeTod article here is absolutely unacceptable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to judge, I just meant to raise attention to this issue. I'll include a proper summary next time. Thank you for taking the time to investigate this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree - You're welcome, and no big deal :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 12 February 2019 (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.

Could someone revoke TPA for this 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.

---

Could someone please revoke TPA for User:184.96.227.15, as it was recently used by the WP:LTA/DENVER perp? Requesting this in-line with WP:DENY. Many thanks. --IanDBeacon (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm disinclined as they are allowed to challenge/discuss/appeal the block. That's what TPA is for. I will leave them words about CU blocks. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Please do. Thanks! IanDBeacon (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Dlohcierekim, but I have revoked talk page access. Their "request" followed an all too familiar pattern for this troll of long standing, and I just blocked two sock accounts. Favonian (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You get to have all the fun. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

They won't need tpa to appeal on original accounts. I left them my Sorry, CU message. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2019 (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 IP at Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education

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.

---

2A01:CB10:383:B300:438:3E9:DD6D:2CD6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making clear legal threats in an edit request. [158] Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2019 (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.

• Who is this "IP" I keep hearing about? It seems like he's responsible for the great majority of legal threats, vandalism, and other disruption on the project. Has anyone tried to find out more about this person and see if some IRL action can be taken? EEng 00:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think his last name is Freely. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

As soon as the right fact situation arises I'm gonna file an ANI containing the phrase "This IP freely [accuses/edits/reverts/whatever]". EEng 02:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Please. Feel free to do so. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

IP Freely? Watch it, RickinBaltimore, Moe is gonna hang up on you. Bishonen | talk 02:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC).

HA HA Fish+Karate 16:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible 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.

---

See [159] and other contribs of Stealthfighter2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All the usual stuff - blanking warnings and so on. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Stealthfighter2000 hasn't been here long, nor edited frequently, but his editing is very tendentious. He specializes in removing sourced negative content about right-wing figures and groups. Example: he removes "neo-fascist" from a description of The Proud Boys,[160] stating in the edit summary: "The reference provided does not describe any sort of fascistic involvement with any group". This is a misunderstanding of how we use sources, and of what sources we allow. It's enough that an independent source with a reputation for fact-checking says the Proud Boys is a neo-fascist group (it does say that). It's no part of Wikipedia editors' job to critique a source's evidence, per WP:OR. This is just one example.

I frankly don't have the impression that the user is here to build an encyclopia, and it's easy to see an indeff or a topic ban in his future, but maybe not quite yet. The worst sign of all is an apparent unwillingness to use talkpages (with the exception of his own, which he edits diligently for the purpose of removing criticism, warnings, and advice). I've posted on his page urging him to talk and discuss on articles talkpages; edit summaries are not enough. But if a little extra rope brings no improvement, well. Bishonen | talk 02:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC).

(Non-administrator comment) Lots of evidence they are WP:NOTHERE. Clear agenda in their editing, all of which has been problematic and reverted. Intentionally deceptive use of the "minor edit" flag and innocuous-sounding edit summaries. I don't see how someone with that sort of history can suddenly change. If they do, let them make a convincing appeal to lift the block/ban. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear agenda only editor. You do not have to look very hard to see this. Removing "far right" or adding "far left" labels and such from various pages with the edit summary "corrected misinformation". [161] [162] [163] Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to note in one edit [164] he literally changed White Nationalists to Patriots, with Patriots redirecting to White Nationalism. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This editor removes referenced content from articles about far right political topics, and adds unreferenced derogatory personal commentary to articles about left wing groups. They like the word "ironically". Their talk page includes a screed asserting that "left-wing fascists control Wikipedia". I do not think this person is here to improve this encyclopedia in accordance with the policies and guidelines, or to collaborate with the community of editors, but rather to push a specific point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, I missed the White nationalists —> Patriots thing. That does it. Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 06:04, 13 February 2019 (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.

BankPR65

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.

---

Keeps on adding the same cut and paste POV soapboxing [[165]] across multiple related articles. Their edit history also looks very SPAy [[166]]. It is becoming very distributive to have to undo this stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And it looks like they are editing warring too.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't all editors start as SPA accounts? It isn't a policy violation. edit warring is tho. 2600:100F:B125:1224:D075:21D1:EB81:E6AD (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2019 (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.

Playing with AIV like mad

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.132.231.213 is exploiting the bot in use and inside the talk page playing with the warnings like a toy. 31 hour block seems too easy and the bot might not understand the nuance of the issue... JarrahTree 00:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

resolved... JarrahTree 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

JarrahTree, Which AIV bot were they exploiting? SQL^{Query me!} 01:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

My sincerest apology - I mis-read the issue - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.132.231.213&action=history - I dont think there was a bot there - as far as I can tell the problem was due to the block not extensive enough for the being able to write within the talk page... JarrahTree 01:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The IP is a mobile phone address, so the length is probably appropriate. I think the problem is that the IP was reported to AIV where, because it was already blocked, it was quickly removed by the bot.[167] In that sort of case, it's fine to report such things here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain the issue. JarrahTree 01:24, 14 February 2019 (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.

Obvious Evlekis-sock needs TPA removed...

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 page history of User talk:HARP TOOK BAR SET. All Evlekis-socks should always have TPA removed, as standard procedure... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:04, 14 February 2019 (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.

Anonymous Disruptive User

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.

---

Hello, now I don't really know how to start this so I'll get straight to the point. Whilst doing some research on the history of Syria and it's government, the Wikipedia page President of Syria I found was vandalized by an anonymous user (really not the first time someone has vandalized the page) identifiable only by his IP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.90.156.10 is the list of his contributions, I hope for the administration to quickly deal with the aforementioned vandalizer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisuvia (talk • contribs) 10:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've protected the page so it can't be edited by anon IPs. This is probably a more effective solution, as many vandals move from one IP address to another. Deb (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2019 (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 by two Wikipedians

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.

---

On the page of Eddie Vedder, two Wikipedians namely Calton and Regents Park have caused havoc. The Legacy section of the forementioned page needs expansion as an 'expansion needed' template is visible there. So trying to help the cause i decided to add a quote said by Roger Daltrey about Eddie vedder which comprised of 51 words, none of which had been altered in any way and so it abided by all the rules laid down by the authority as one can check here.Special:diff/882834638 After this Regents Park who has already been warned nearly 6 times on his talk page about edit warring, reverted the edit without giving appropriate reason here.Special:diff/882858584 As far as i know, No edit is a sockpuppet and so one should not revert an edit which improves a particular article even if it is done by a sockpuppet as you will then be hindering the improvement. But regents park didn't seem to care about these basic principles. Reporting this act to one of my friends Martinevans123 on his talk page, i added that quotebox again to check if he gives reason this time but this time Calton sprung to the occasion and reverted my edit with a reason that didn't make any sense at all, here Special:diff/883080897. Calton has been subject to personal attacks on other editors for approximately 8 times and cautioned for edit warring 6 times(one can check it from his talk page). I, in provocation then re added that quotebox but reverted my own edit because i knew that no article should become a place of edit war and so i stepped aback. Considering the previous ill-behavioured comments of Calton and RegentsPark towards other editors and disruptive editing done by both of them in the case above, i henceforth seek for attention of an administrator towards the matter and suggest:

•RegentsPark to either lose his adminship or be blocked for a definite period.

•Calton be blocked for atleast a month.

•Permission to add the quotebox.

I just suggest these and the above points are just my opinions so please dont mind if you disagree. All upto you guys. REGARDS 2405:204:A507:3721:0:0:1C46:E8A1 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Your edit was good faith. The formatting could be nicer and the description wasn't neutral, but those are easily fixed by editing, which I have just done. Hopefully that'll be end of the issue, unless anyone wants to revert that, in which case I'll open a discussion on the talk page. As for "any person reverts an edit which improves the article as in this case then he is said to be causing vandalism" - that's not true. See Hanlon's razor. I'm not inclined to take any action towards RegentsPark or Calton other than this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's normal practice for the editor raising an issue here, to alert any named editors? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC) p.s. I already know.

• It was unclear to me why a three sentence legacy section needs a long quote from Roger Daltrey to bolster it but I should have said so in the edit summary. The praise, combined with a blacklisted url as a citation, led me to believe that you were the long term Pearl Jam promoting sock. Apologies if that's not the case. --regentspark (comment) 12:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a reciprocal quotation from Vedder on The Who, which is my most contributed-to article, which is probably why I thought it wasn't necessarily a bad idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Please also see this from my talkpage, where the above editor admits to being a sockpuppet. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've not come across Calton before, but he really needs to control his temper a bit. (I realise this is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, but still....) Some recent examples:

• "Do you have the SLIGHTEST evidence that anyone, anywhere, gives two shits what a Reddit subedit thinks?"
• "Sure you are (restoring neutrality)"
• "Misconduct? What are you on about?"
• "It doesn't appear that Jimbo Wales has died and left you in charge."
• "You know, altering the actual title of the cited NY Times article counts as lying"
• "My talk page, not yours, genius. Try the honesty approach to rewriting history"

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Calton, play nice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

RegentsPark Not a three line legacy. Also I was going to correct the URLs' value but some error occurred. Better take care from now Regents. This ain't the first time you've done such thing but anyways. I am a sock but still I always edit constructively and only one provocative comment from peoples like you led me to commit a mistake which I am sorry of, I say it again. Thanks to all of you guys especially Martin but have you been as much lenient in my case then you wouldn't have lost a honest and well mannered Wikipedian like me. Happy blocking me. Cheers 47.9.81.186 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, losing track of IP addresses. Not sure who we've "lost" or why. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Then I would advise you no socking for six months and then Wikipedia:Standard offer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I didn't mean it to you. I meant it to the administrators who reviewed the matter. So dont worry. You've have always been friendly towards everybody and that's why i trust you. Regards117.234.230.10 (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

So that's IP address number 3? Hard to know who is who sometimes Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a giant game of cat and mouse. I guess the IP (playing the part of the "mouse") will hope Bbb23 (playing the part of the "cat") will get fed up and snap in response. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Assuming this is just one editor, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• puts hand over one eye* .... bang goes his application then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 14 February 2019 (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.

86.172.26.58

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 a block for persistent vandalism over at mark dices talk page. [[168]][[169]][[170]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2019 (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.

Disruption at Peter Hotez

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 IP keeps trying to push a POV, I am not sure if a rangeblock or page protection is needed. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim has protected the page until February 17th. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 15 February 2019 (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:142.113.122.76

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.

---

He is on a tear: changing odd-name spellings to anything but the correct. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 22:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Added link to IP editor's contributions for convenience Special:Contributions/142.113.122.76. I just reverted some. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked! 204.130.226.100 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2019 (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:Planetary Chaos Redux

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.

---

Planetary Chaos Redux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As a result of some stuff by Mark Dice there have been some issues with not here accounts being reactivated for the sole purpose of pushing Mark Dices agenda. The above accou t has not been active for 4 years and then posted this [[171]], since then (and despite my asking) they have made not one constructive edit. But have continued to complain and ignore requests to not soapbos [[172]] [[173]]. It is clear they are just trolling.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, just finished blocking them. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mark_Dice_related_blocks. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep misunderstood your comment.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn this one. The block fails WP:AGF and WP:BMB. One bad edit is not a reason to indef, especially when the editor in question has never been blocked before and is respected enough to have the rollback permission. wumbolo ^^^ 18:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Its two bad edits (the only two apart from my (and his talk page) in the last 4 years), and a host of "I do not want to hear it" over at both his and my talk page (including a frivolous welcome message). It is clear meatpuppetry and SPAing. But maybe an indef is too far, a block is not.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

They can appeal an indef. That will force a conversation. Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

They have using the UTRS system, so I certainly cannot converse about it (I also always thought that was a final, not first, court of appeal).Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Likely they will be referred to their talk page, as they haven't lost talk page access. (It just was) RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm open to the block being shortened and I've already said that if they're willing to back off I'd be fine with unblocking them. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• endorse blocks And I think Wumbolo needs a block for disruption by encouraging these obvious meatpuppets. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  What the hell? I point a user to a behavioral guideline that they violated, and you threaten me with a block?! I can't edit this topic anymore with several admins supportive of bullying new editors. (I'm not saying that blocking is necessarily bullying, but that some attitudes here are highly inappropriate.) I have arranged the talk page templates at Talk:Mark Dice so that good faith new editors are aware of the circumstances and take care not to violate policies and guidelines. This will limit the indeffing of good editors to a minimum and make me feel no guilt about not helping new editors. Just WOW at all the attacks directed at me for having the audacity to disagree with some blocks and the length that some will go to in order to distort my statements. I'm unwatching the Mark Dice article and its AfD because it's just flooding my watchlist with hate. The next time you WP:HOUND some of my edits to criticize them, I will give you two choices: report me at ANI or I report you. Bye, wumbolo ^^^ 22:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't you go! Not everyone is a ****. (fill in the blank with your preferred swear word). 204.130.226.100 (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Dlohcierekim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I also agree with Dlohcierkim. That post at a user talkpage is really offside but it's just a usertalk where we give more leeway. Legacypac (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks. The statement "One admin has been indiscriminately blocking respected editors" is known as casting WP:ASPERSIONS. It is well to remember the AGF is not a suicide pact. MarnetteD|Talk 00:13, 15 February 2019 (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.

Jus' sayin'

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've seen four Haikus on this page in the past week or so and have been thoroughly enjoying them. If they stop, I will be very disappointed in the admins.

Thought provoking poems,
made of structured syllables
help to ease tensions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

People who cannot

Write encyclopedia

Get banhammered fast Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, I feel less tense already. "I'll go to the foot of our stairs" (as they say in Yorkshire). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

People who can write

Encyclopaedia well

Get hammered later. GoldenRing (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

WI K I

I PE

D I A

Am I doing it right?💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You spelled Wikipedia wrong bro INeedSupport ^:3 16:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Glistening frost hills, Wikipedia on screen; YouTube NOT RS

Dumuzid (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, I can almost feel cherry blossom falling on the snow Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2019 (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:Lancepickell not here: antisemitism, white supremacy

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 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.

---

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

Basically all this user's edits are to push anti-semitic positions or to adjust portrayals of various white supremacists, with no particular concern for sourcing etc. Here's a quick sampler: talk page rant, adding the phrase "Neoconservative shill for Israel" to a BLP, this charming bit of anti-semitic dog-whistling, nice friendly Adolf Hitler, whitewashing white supremacy, and some more clear-cut antisemitism. There is no evidence in their edits of anything valuable that would be lost by an indef block. --JBL (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• QZD, why did you say "no reliable source" when you reverted? This is just another antisemitic trope--the Rothschilds, you know, the Jews who own everything and want to take your guns... Yes, a block would be fine. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2019 (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.

Further though required.
Splitting parentheticals
over lines is crass. GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

e. e. cummings would
not mind
           mod
               ern
                   ist
                       haikus (
and neither should you).​
Leviv ich 03:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Liberal rubbish. I
May not know much about art;
I know what I like. GoldenRing (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.

User:Alex 21

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 to invite administrators to look into the recent talk page behaviour of Alex 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), particularly at Module talk:Episode list#Sandbox version update and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Accessibility disagreement. Last month I directly offered an olive branch in response to a previous disagreement, which was not taken in good spirit. More broadly, I believe this to be symptomatic of WP:OWNERSHIP across the television WikiProjects, through which Alex habitually cherry-picks policies and/or guidelines to justify his opinion rather than forming an opinion based on policies and guidelines, while refusing to recognising the validity of any opposing viewpoints (even, as in the examples linked above, when consensus is against him). This behaviour makes editing and discussing television articles an unpleasant and unwelcoming experience, and I therefore believe it to be detrimental to the Wikipedia community. I have pointed this out to Alex on my talk page, but he simply does not seem to care about the experience of other editors. Happy to take on any advice or censure regarding my own actions as part of this; I am a far less experienced editor than Alex, but have gone into multiple articles with intentions to improve the project over the last few weeks and have found his obstructive attitude very hard to deal with. U-Mos (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, my first advice is rather than just make a great big pile of assertions, aspersions, and assumptions, all without context, please provide diffs, or this will not be going anywhere. Fish+Karate 12:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I too would be interested in seeing any diffs provided, so that I can reply and defend my actions accordingly. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one who's had to deal with this User. After being threatened about being blocked, I became agreeable to his change, though he still feels a need to be sarcastic and rude. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (GMT)

@MichaelCorleone7: You were edit-warring. However, looking at your talk page, this isn't the first time an editor has had to warn you... -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes and likewise, others are tired of your rude nature, that was the difference between other users on my Talk Page and yours, where you had to add a sarcastic remark. Instead of attacking and threatening other Users, try and be more polite and provide constructive criticism. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (GMT)

Tried that, but to no avail. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If you feel that you were being polite - then you need to re-assess your vocabulary. Your behaviour was similar to that of an internet troll. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2019

• Comment: No diffs have been provided. I would like to remind both U-Mos and Alex 21 that discussion of content and edits should be confined to article talk, and should never be posted on usertalk. I'd also like to remind U-Mos that the correct way to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved in normal discussion threads is to use some form of WP:DR, such as an WP:RFC or posting a neutral request for participation at a WikiProject talkpage, rather than bringing the issue(s) to ANI. Beyond that, I think this ANI thread can be closed for lack of evidence, unless diffs are provided. Softlavender (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought talk page section links were more efficient than a mass of diffs in this case, but will happily provide them if necessary. They will follow below shortly. U-Mos (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials: Uncivil reply & groundless accusation [174];refers to a user's work as "horrendous" [175] & restates this when challenged by Bilorv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [176]; deliberate manipulation of Bilorv's following comment [177]; repeatedly diverts discussion to derail [178] [179]; groundless WP:CANVAS accusation on my talk page [180].

Regarding templates for discussion: Highly uncivil responses to Zackmann08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [181] [182] [183]; deletes my comment [184]; further spurious accusation, made uncivilly [185] (see also self-contradictions below).

Regarding episode list module/MOS:ACCESS: Refuses to recognise accessibility guidelines and states direct intention to contradict them in reply to Gonnym (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [186], continues when WP:POINT violation noted by RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [187]; uncivil comment to Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [188]; attempts at WP:GAMING [189] [190]; describes accessibility improvements as "unreadable" [191]; WP:WIKILAWYERING [192]; accuses Gonnym of WP:CANVAS [193]; shifts goalposts in discussion to suit non-neutral viewpoint & uncivil comment to me ("What a mess!") [194], latter denied [195]; further major incivility against Redrose64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [196], Gonnym [197] and me [198]; misrepresents the comments of Redrose64 [199] and Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [200]; finally resorts to denying an issue was ever raised and repeats incivility towards me [201] [202].

Other infractions: sarcastic uncivil response to my RfC request [203], repeated in response to proffered olive branch [204] & spurious accusation of poor faith [205]; shows no concern for Wikipedia community as long as he's "happy" [206].

Self-contradictions, suggesting WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:GAMING: Inferences from guidelines should stand in articles while discussed [207], unless the inference is made by someone else [208]; single-use or little-used templates are acceptable [209], except when they're not [210] [211]. On the latter, after contradiction was pointed out Alex claimed he was now neutral on the earlier discussion [212], refused to acknowledge that on the still-live TfD because "I don't care" [213], then denied any change of mind when I noted it in the TfD [214], and further refuted evidence of WP:GAMING (and misrepresented the entire discussion, clearly listed as a merge proposal) [215]. U-Mos (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

OK then, diffs have now been provided. Leviv ich 07:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank for you providing these diffs; I will be taking time to reply to them. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No such "groundless accusation" was madeDiff 243; at that point, a reply had been made to every opposing comment, so I asked if you planned to continue to do that. How you interpreted that it up to you. Yes, I called the work "horrendous"[216]; perhaps a beter word could have been used, but I am allowed to express my opinions of a suggestion, especially when it did not seem to improve Wikipedia whatsoever. Given that that discussion closed with no consensus, it was clear that there was no widespread agreement to support the changes either. Continuing onto "deliberate manipulation"[217], I asked for a source that supported their statement. Nothing less, nothing more. They stated that the specials could include, "in four years time, perhaps Christmas, Boxing Day and New Year" episodes. I asked "Can you back up the fact that there will be a Boxing Day special?". I find this to be a baseless accusation. "Derailing" the conversation[218], you yourself said "this isn't the place to discuss that." I asked "If it's not the place to discuss that, then why bring it up here?" If you do not wish to discuss an item in a discussion, then do not raise it in the discussion and then assume that it will pass without dispute. In fact, raising an item in a discussion, when unrelated to the main discussion at hand, and then trying to divert away from it so that it can be included in the result of the main discussion, that could very easily be considered derailing itself. For the second diff[219], the changes to the article were going to have a widespread affect across a multitude of other articles, so that needed to be addressed. For example, the Stranger Things article was recently split, and thus when discussing the split, the matter of the main article changing with the update also had to be address. Same case here: Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials was possibly going to be changed, as well as a number of season and series articles, and thus the statuses of List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) were a major concern. The CANVAS questionDiff 248, it was not an accusation, but a question. You posted on the talk pages of two separate editorsDiff 249Diff 250, with posts that stated "This page is of interest to this WikiProject", a statement which clearly does not relate to a specific editor. I asked if there was a reason for it that did not violate CANVAS. That's not saying that you were CANVAS'ing. Turns out, there was a reason, and I was happy with your response, after you updated the incorrect statements in the posts on the user talk page to say "As a participant in an earlier related discussion, you may wish to participate" instead.Diff 251

Templates for discussion.[220][221][222] The comments were less uncivil, more requesting why the editor was requesting the mass deletion of a number of related templates, without proposing any sort of substitution. Another editor proposed a merge, and I was happy with that; something that was not done in the original post.[223] If Zackmann08 had an issue with that, he would have brought the issue to ANI himself. I had extremely good grounds to revert (not delete) your editDiff 256: you do not edit other editor's comments. If you had wanted to post your own, then you should have done so without editing any others. I warned you about this on your talk page[224]. Per WP:TPO, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Editing my comment was seen as an act of bad faith, especially in the face of such a guideline. If any further spurious accusation were made,[225] it was because you were attempting to connect two unrelated discussions solely from our previous (current at the time) interactions at the time. The discussion of the module had zero place at the discussion for the unrelated template deletion.

Episode list module/MOS:ACCESS. Throughout this entire discussion, I was told that it was against policy and guideline to include rowspans in the midst of a table. Every time I requested proof of this, proof that it was part of a policy or guideline, I was never given a straight answer. I have not yet been linked to policy or guideline that states that we cannot include rowspans in the midst of a table. Yes, at the time, I did declare my decision to revert such changes,[226] as I had not been provided with anything that support bold changes; if I remember correctly, bold changes that are undiscussed in templates and/or modules that are high-use are against policy. I'll see if I can find that one later. RexxS stated that I was [227] "wiki-lawyering"; barely a supportable accusation when all I stated was that the guideline provided banned only the use of <br> tags, and nothing else. DTAB makes no mention of <hr>. Hence, they are similar, but you cannot state the guideline that bars one thing and then state yourself that it encompasses all. And a threat for ANI because of it; I actually missed that bit. I made no edits to "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point", the entire interaction was through discussion. The reply to Pigsonthewing,[228] an editor who I've had interactions with in the past, and who attempts to bring my personal life and statements into the discussion, and debating if I'm an editor that is "worth their salt". Yes, the comment was irrelevant. Gaming?Diff 262Diff 263 I think not. I quoted exactly what the guidelines state. Is this to say that I cannot quote guidelines? I find no reason behind this; what do you mean by it? "improvements"[229], again, after no policy or guideline was supplied when I asked for it. You want to make a statement against rowspans, or anything else, you back it up. Just as I had/have through quoting guidelines and policies. Another Wikilawyering accusation?Diff 265 I must ask how. I related episode titles and serial titles to be titles in general. If you mean "As the editor who's talk page you went to stated, there is no guideline or policy that dictates that rowspans cannot be used", this[230] was their reply: "My $0.02 on this is that it is clear that WP:ACCESS needs to be updated to make the problems with 'rowspan' (and 'colspan') in tables spelled out explicitly (currently the issues are just "implied") – it's just that somebody has to take the first step and either do it and make the changes to WP:ACCESS". This supports the fact that there is no such supporting evidence. Yes, it may need to be added, but at the time, it was not. That's not Wikilawyering. That's not not going by what an editor personally says about a guideline, when the guideline itself does not say that. Gonnym's WP:CANVAS[231], they posted on the talk pages of two specifc editors[232][233]. As far as I know, the posts did not conform to WP:APPNOTE. Simply stating CANVAS is not automatically an accusation, please do understand that. It was a request. And yes, I said "What a mess".[234] Because I believed that the current example was a complete mess and would not improve the Wikipedia whatsoever. Further examples were proposed, primarily by RexxS,[235] that I coded into the module via sandbox, opting to then discuss them rather than implement them. I did not deny that I said it[236]. I was clear and up front about it. "latter denied"? Do you mean that I denied that I made the comment, or that it was uncivil? If it was the latter, then again, I am allowed an opinion. Strong language is not necessarily uncivil, it is my opinion on the matter. Incivility claims[237]Diff 274[238]: First one, all I said was that "already accepted the advice given, proposed a coded solution based off of the example given in this very section". I was told that that was wrong. That's not incivility. That's summarizing what happened. Second: Another opinion. If you believe that everyone's opinions can only conform to your views, then I recommend that you learn that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and that not everyone will agree with you. I stated "creates more hassle, given that another module will need modifying to support one series". Is this incorrect? Changing the module as proposed would require the modification of more than one high-used module. If this is incorrect, please do inform me. Third: you did indeed jump in halfway through the discussion.Diff 276 May I request how so? Were you following the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility page? In the comment before mine, you summarized all screen readers to be the same, when you were told that all screen readers are different. You went in the face of the recommendations of supporting editors in the same discussion. No misrepresentation occurred[239]; I believed that Redrose64's comments were further backing (not necessarily on their part, but this is my opinion of their comments) for my position. I never said they support it. I stated that their comment was further backing for my support. Notice, however, that Redrose64 did not mention you either. Assuming that it was misrepresentation indicates that you believed their comment was for support for your position; this too could be viewed as misrepresentation on your part. Best not to make accusations when nobody other than the posting editor knows what they meant. And yet again, quoting an editor is not misrepresentationDiff 278: as I've already stated: "you summarized all screen readers to be the same, when you were told that all screen readers are different". That's exactly what I quoted back at you, the other editor's comments. They stated "Unless your reader comprises more than 80% of all readers used, it should offer information for us to improve layout but should not become a standard for us to follow." You made it a standard. I most certainly did not deny that an issue was ever raised. I stated that titles was not the primary concern, it was the rowspans in the middle of the table.Diff 279 In the comment before mine,[240] you stated "let's use our information to improve the layout as best we can then. Separating the serial and episode titles into different columns seems like a good place to start". This seemed to me a very bad faith comment after we'd just had an entire disagreement over the content. And then you wanted to start it over again? How was that constructive? It was not.

Response to your RfC request[241]; is sarcasm against policy now? I wasn't aware of that, my apologies. (/s) You showed no willingness to actually have a discusson with editors. You went straight to RFC. That indicates that you hold no respect for your fellow editors and you would rather ignore them then discuss it. That's why I said that your edits were in "poor faith", as you said.[242] As I said: "I recommend that you learn that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort". Pages only go where they are through discussion. Discuss. My talk page[243], my decision on how I respond. If you don't like it, I would recommend not posting to my talk page. I'm a sarcastic person. Have been for the four (almost five) years I've been editing here. I'm not changing it for one person, apologies. You stated "shows no concern for Wikipedia community as long as he's "happy""?Diff 284 Wow, that's the biggest misinterpration I've heard. I said that I'm happy. I said nothing about the Wikipedia community and my happiness's position in that. You stated, about my editing, "It's a real shame". I could take offense to that, just as you have about my comments of suggestions being a "mess", etc., but I'm happy (yes, happy) to ignore them and continue on. You accused me of three reverts. You were incorrect. Please acknowledge that.

"Inferences from guidelines should stand in articles while discussed"Diff 285; correct. Your edits to the article were reverted, and you continued to force themDiff 286Diff 287Diff 288; that is the definition of edit-warring per WP:EW. I recommend that you actually read those guidelines that I presented you; everyone else abides by them, so why don't you have to? Maintaining that your edits had to stay in the article while being discussed is certainly "suggesting WP:OWNERSHIP", but on your part. "unless the inference is made by someone else"[244] - I don't get this bit. Inference is made by who? What inference? The guideline did not support your statement, a discussion that closed with consensus against you. Are you listing this because I opposed your edits? I'm confused. "single-use or little-used templates are acceptable"[245][246][247]. Interesting how you list this, given that you support that single-use or little-used templates/edits are acceptable except when they're not (Diff 293 not acceptable, acceptable when an editor proposed itDiff 294 and you continue to support it). I recommend a firm WP:BOOMERANG there. I did not say that I was neutral on the discussionDiff 295, I said that "I don't care which way that discussion goes.", so yes, I continue to denyDiff 296 being "neutral". First sarcasm isn't allowed, now I can't say "I don't care"? Wow. You further stated that I "misrepresented the entire discussion, clearly listed as a merge proposal"[248]. It most certainly was not. As I clearly stated: there was "no merge !votes in this discussion, and only one comment mentioning the word "merge"." The proposal was to merge, yes. I never said that a merge would not happen. If the merge continues, sure. It can be merged. Nothing was said about not allowing an alternate proposal.

I truly do apologize for the walls of text, but I felt the strong need to defend myself here. To summarize, it seems that a vast majority of this is a misinterpretation of my often-present sarcasm and responses where I disagree with a solution; "What a mess", "I don't care", "horrendous", being "happy". I've met far stronger oppositions in my almost-five years here, and I continue on. I apologize if this has upset or hurt the OP; I'll be sure to take their feelings into consideration. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I was mentioned above, so I have clarified the comment under discussion. Please also respect WP:INDENTGAP, which also concerns accessibility. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I was pinged so I'll just quickly comment regarding the CANVASSING accusation. I deliberately did not respond to the accusation when Alex raised it, as I've found that some editors tend to derail the conversation so no solution can be found. Regarding my post at IJBall's talk page: during the discussion at Module:Episode list I said "There were a few discussions in the past which, if I remember correctly, said that using a rowspan is ok as long as it is continuous, but shouldn't be used in the middle of a table.", Alex replied with "I would be interested in seeing such discussions". My post to IJBall was not asking him to join the discussion, which he did not do until Alex posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television here, but to ask him for links to the discussion (as I knew he had a few of those) so I can provide them for Alex. What did Alex expect me to do? Search manually all of Wikipedia in the hopes that I'll find those discussions? Regarding my post at Izno's page: Since I knew Izno had technical experience in this field in the past, I asked him to join the discussion and give his opinion. As this is a technical issue and not a personal preference one, I would have thought that having an editor with experience in this topic, would be a good addition to the discussion. To me personally, that accusation seem very bad faith and seemed with the intent to derail the discussion, which is why I ignored it. --Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I was also pinged so I'll reply: the description of a user's work as "horrendous" is shockingly rude. Alex digged himself deeper when I asked him to remove this. I note he also gives a non-apology here: "Yes, I called the work "horrendous"; perhaps a beter word could have been used, but I am allowed to express my opinions of a suggestion". Very much missing the point. Indeed Alex is allowed to do this, as his comment was not a personal attack. It was merely an uncivil remark and I don't think his behaviour in the rest of the discussion violated any policy, much as I disagree with his position. The problem with this "horrendous" comment is not that it's blockworthy, but that it's going to make the subject feel hurt and discouraged from future editing (at least, that's how I would feel). I don't believe Alex's actions warrant an ANI thread but I would encourage him to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground even when it's a topic he clearly has very strong feelings on. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a very fair summary. I thought very carefully about starting this ANI, only chose to do so because it's a sustained pattern that I have witnessed for over a month, and despite it being pointed out on several occasions Alex has shown no recognition of how detrimental it can be to the collaborative community.

Mostly, I think it is best for me to step back and allow other users to comment here, but I'll respond to the questions Alex asks me and make a couple of brief points for context.

Diff 243 above: There were just two comments to my proposal at this point. The first, true, I probably didn't need to reply to; the second was yours, where you asked direct questions that I was in a position to clarify. On the receiving end, it seemed very soon to be charging in with a WP:BLUDGEON accusation, and certainly didn't feel like good faith was assumed. Subsequent diffs included to demonstrate the combative stance taken throughout, which was highly detrimental to that discussion.

Diffs 248-51: In the context of our opposing positions in the discussion, this felt like an accusation and an attempt to discredit. And, as you never responded to my reply, I was never aware that you recognised I had acted appropriately. Glad to see that now; it would have been very beneficial at the time.

Diff 256: I found it very hard to know what to do in this situation, as your altered position was clearly relevant to the TfD and you declined to mention it there. I stand by the comment, but recognise that striking out your vote was the wrong call. You had every right to revert that. That does not, however, justify you removing my comment at the same time, which violates the very guidelines you drew my attention to. I did not bring up the module discussion at the TfD, only your comments regarding the template.

Diffs 262-3: Rolling out the 'it's only a guideline so I can ignore it' and WP:IAR in the face of guidelines disagreeing with your inclination seems pretty game-y to me, especially in the middle of a discussion where consensus is starting to form against your position.

Diff 265: Yes, I believe you were "Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express", by insisting repeatedly that accessibility matters could be ignored because they aren't explicitly discussed in WP:ACCESS.

Diff 274: Your comment opens "Terrible. A mess." That is your opinion, yes, but is expressed uncivilly. Per WP:IUC, this is regular behaviour that has been drawn to your attention before.

Diff 276: I'm really not sure why you keep bringing up my time of entry into that discussion. I came to Module talk:Episode list from your WikiProject notification, and missed the switch to another talk page for a little while, that's all. To use that minor circumstance as a stick to beat me with when I fail to guess correctly which previous "alternate suggestion" you comment referred to was rather unpleasant.

Diff 278: I did not generalise all screen readers, other than in one stray aside that I readily corrected. And neither did I at any point suggest setting a precedent from the individual case being discussed, so the deployment of another user's words was inappropriate ("misusing" more accurate than "misrepresenting", on second thoughts).

Diff 279: We were in the middle of a long discussion over the titles column and accessibility, as part of the wider discussion, when you directly stated that No accessibility issues have been raised concerning the titles column for the suggested options, essentially telling me that my contribution to the discussion was worthless to the point of non-existence. You then further told me that I didn't understand the full issue regarding rowspans, which I had already commented on multiple times.

Diff 284: Yes, you said nothing about the Wikipedia community. Exactly. I told you how unpleasant your attitude had made contributing to the project, and your only concern was for your own happiness.

Diffs 285-8: Les Misérables (2018 miniseries) is a strange one. Sorry to say I got sucked in, as a matter of days after you censured me for literal interpretation of guidelines [249] you were practising the exact opposite position when the roles were reversed. What's strange is you could have informed me of the precedents (over applying guidelines that I still think read far too vaguely to the uninitiated) you later revealed when I raised the matter at the guidelines talk page, or you could have let me know that Derek Jacobi wasn't in fact in the second episode (or any other) and thus we weren't actually in dispute over the article content, but the unnecessary situation was exasperated for no good reason.

Diffs 293-4: Those are not my edits.

Diffs 295-6: You cannot both not care about a matter, and oppose it. And if you meant something else, then my original reason for raising that contradiction stands, i.e. why a little-used template is fine by you in one instance, but a primary reason to stand against proposed changes in another?

I will now take a break and allow others to state their thoughts. U-Mos (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@U-Mos: The link numering you refer to will change when earlier sections of this page are archived. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex refers to me, in this section, as "an editor who I've had interactions with in the past, and who attempts to bring my personal life and statements into the discussion, and debating if I'm an editor that is "worth their salt". Yes, the comment was irrelevant." He doesn't link to those previous interactions, nor say how (nor, indeed, whether) they are relevant to the issue at hand. His claim that I have "brought his personal life and statements into the discussion" refers to my commenting on a statement on his user page here on Wikipedia; that is something that he, not I, has brought to Wikipedia. I have never commented as to whether he is "an editor that is 'worth their salt'"; given that what I actually said was "any web developer worth their salt understands accessibility issues", it's hard to see such a claim as anything other than a deliberate misrepresentation. The comment which he claims was irrelevant was suggesting that he should read Web Content Accessibility Guidelines; which is highly relevant in a discussion of, well, web content accessibility. All of this may seem trivial, but it typifies the wikilawerish approach he brings to his troubling attempts to disregard serious issues affecting the accessibility of Wikipedia content to its readers, and the solutions to them which have both found long-standing consensus on Wikipedia and become best practice on the wider web. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've never personally had any issues with Alex, he's been friendly when we've interacted on here in the past and seems to be someone sensible with how they maintain pages. It's a huge contrast to some of the egoists I've encountered since editing here that really don't like being told that they're wrong or are just plain uncomfortable to deal with because of their attitude. After reading some of the comments here It looks like to me that he's simply guilty of hurting someones feelings, not of breaking some kind of rule. And the last time I checked that's not a ban worthy thing, we can't all be right in our opinions, but sometimes you just need to accept that and move on. Esuka (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

My concern reading this is that Alex is too quick to assume poor faith. Bad faith is when an editor has the intent of hurting the Wikimedia project, and U-Mos' actions (editing a comment made by Alex and starting an RfC before holding a discussion) were not intended to hurt the project, even though these actions are questionable, and Alex was welcome to criticize them, but not welcome to call them bad/poor faith. Regarding Alex's sarcasm, my personal belief is that sarcasm is O.K. but he should be careful to ensure it's civil. IMO much of Alex's incivility appears to be tactless, rather than outright malevonent (e.g. calling an edit "horrendous" was tactless), so Alex should be careful to ensure that his comments are not able to be intrepreted incorrectly by a sensible person (e.g. This could quite easily be interpreted as an accusation of canvasing, even though it wasn't). However, some of the diffs that U-Mos has provided weren't problematic, e.g. Alex accusing them of bludgeoning was not uncivil, it was a founded criticism of their behaviour (that I witnessed). I would also point out that WP:GAMING, as it says in the first line, mentions it's done in bad faith, which Alex has not acted in, so these accusations should not have been made. But my main belief is the Alex's behaviour is not malevonent and is not done with intent to cause a poor editing experienece to others. --TedEdwards 18:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. And with that being said I think this topic should be closed. So unless this place has suddenly become the place for people to vent about people who hurt their feelings, there's nothing substantial here worth keeping the topic open for. Perhaps the closing admin can just remark that certain users should play nice in the future and this can be left there. Esuka (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2019 (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.

Editing restrictions

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.

---

Morning Wikipedia community. I am here because I want my issue to be resolved going foreward. Last night, admin NinjaRobotPirate blocked me based on the assumption that i "may be similar to another editor". I am editing and posting here with as an IP because he revoked my editing rights and blocked me as Loved150 based on the assumption of quote "two editors seem to share editing tweaks". I have left a message on my talk here [250] so he can unblock me because it is unjust to liken me to a user i don't know & then going as far as blocking me based on his assumption. A brief background is that sometime back, a checkuser Berean Hunter looked into me but could not block me after finding that i am clearly not affliated to anyone here [251]. To my surprise, Ninja robot blocked me because he assumed I "may be another editor". I dont know and i am sorry if i am overstepping my jurisdiction since i am fairly younger but i view the actions of Ninja as an administrator using his full throttle power on a helpless & vulnerable non-administrator & would wish someone in here to unblock me 102.146.224.45 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2019 (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:JasperKlomp02's sandbox

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 other day, this user's sandbox was deleted. It has many revisions (~400) with the editor having three mainspace edits. It was nominated for deletion through MfD. I opined that the user was misusing Wikipedia as a webhost. Now, the sandbox has been recreated with similar webhost-y like contents. There was no response from the editor when the sandbox was nominated for deletion. So, my question is: can his sandbox be protected against creation? I also think that this is a clear WP:NOTHERE case as well. Thanks!

Here is a link to the page in question: User:JasperKlomp02/sandbox. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support deletion (whether through this ANI thread, another MfD, or G4) and create protection. I previously expressed a view to keep in the MfD, but now its obvious this editor isn't going to contribute to the encyclopedia, which is why I'd also support a NOTHERE block. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment To me that looks like various articles I've created in userspace where I collect mentions while trying to determine whether (or waiting until) a subject is notable. Except of course he's writing about his own work, but if he declared a COI, he could do that and submit to AfC once he could prove notability. valereee (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• a weird situation. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JasperKlomp02/sandbox There is no evidence this user intends to use this in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• It's probably harmless, except that the info on that page that is about living persons must be removed if it is not referenced. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've re-deleted it (WP:CSD#G4) and salted it. From a quick review, everything on the page seems fake, and they're just messing around. I've left a warning on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2019 (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.

Henry Box Brown and George Pell

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've tried both AiV and page protection boards. Can we get some help please? 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Both pages have been semiprotected. I put up some range blocks that should help. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • My thanks to you and all the admins who assisted. The charms of whack-a-mole wear thin after a while. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Haiku-style closes
At Incidents Noticeboard
Odd innovation!

EEng

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.

Baseless Hindu-centric edits made by User:Fylindfotberserk on Gurdas Maan

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.

---

Hello,

I would like to bring out the baseless edits made by User:Fylindfotberserk on Jat Sikh musical legend Gurdas Maan.

Specifically, Fylind took it upon themselves, and their fabled (and scientifically proven as BASELESS) "Indo-Aryan" heritage, to remove Gurdas Maan's birth town.

I then provided a reasonable source that stated Gurdas Maan is from Muktsar, to which this Hindu did not take too kindly and promptly reverted+threatened me with punishment (seems this is all they have learned, the esteemed James Mill [author of The History of British India said as much ]).

I have added additional sources, but I think this user will continue to revert. The carnage they have caused on Gurdas' page (and likely other legitimate Sikh individuals) is unspeakable, but very reflective of the anti-Sikh sentiment that Wikipedia has fostered.

When will our concerns be heard? Or are the combined ratio of the Hindu and Muslims to Sikhs (100+++ : 1) continue to fall upon deaf ears? We are having our very own stolen from us, because some uneducated editors from India want to spin a story that falls in their favour.

It must stop. 24.65.154.39 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please make sure if you report you inform them on their user talk page, I have already done so for you. TheMesquito^buzz 04:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that Fylindfotberserk has started a conversation on the article talk page. Have you tried talking about your differences? It often helps defuse tense editing situations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I've attempted to do some formatting and content fixes. Hope that helps. --Ebyabe (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what's with this IP editor from Canada. All I wanted was not to have any WP:OR in the article. A person's might be a native of village A but be born in Town B while in transit or otherwise. Why can't we have explicit mention of his birth place like a lot of other BLP articles.

Instead all this user does is to harass me and fellow editors he differs from. I've also issued a level 4 warning here but he still harassed me See here, here. And also note the ridiculousness of his edit summaries and ref names. And how is being born or not being born in a certain place equals to Anti-Sikh propaganda? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Harassment by IP editor 24.65.154.39

IP 24.65.154.39 editor has repeatedly harassed me.

• Initially here. After that I issued a issued a level 4 warning in his talk page here
• But again harassed me here and here.
• He also used slang words in my talk page here

This IP was recently blocked. Clearly he is not here to edit articles assuming good faith and act as per civility. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2019 (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.

Odd editing history

178.220.71.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing something strange. Not surewhat the point is or whether it needs to be addressed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

They seem to be correcting whitespace errors (if they can be called errors). I don't think there's any point to doing it but it's not harmful, per se. IPs can't game extended-confirmed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn't there a sockmaster whose MO is screwing around with whitespace? I seem to remember some issue with a whitespace vandal, there's an edit filter for it. Someone who knows should take a look at this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is, I can't remember who it is. At this point all of the IP's edits have been constructive edits to whitespace, at least to the extent that editing a page only to play with whitespace can be considered constructive (it's not destructive, I guess, they're not removing all whitespace or adding huge gaps and breaking things). I don't remember if that matches the sockmaster's behaviour or not, but as long as they continue not breaking things I think we can leave them alone. Of course I'm open to other opinions, if someone has a good reason why this is disruptive, there could be something I haven't considered. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any harm. It just looked weird so I wanted to ask. Perhaps he is writing a secret program using the Whitespace programming language... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Not only there is no Vandalism, but also removing extra space help to improve the article. however, it is a marvelous strategy. So It needs to more time for hounding IP which began to edit from 2 weeks ago and finally find its aim.M1nhm (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:0716pyhao as SPA for making controversial move without discussion

• 0716pyhao (talk · contribs)
• Thiago Alcântara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) C&p move attempt on 2017-03-13, warned by Frosty, RM to 0716pyhao's proposal (which also nominated by others) had been rejected many times
• Medhi Lacen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) another C&p move attempt and have been warned by GiantSnowman
• Antonio Dominique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) yet another bold move and have been warned again by GiantSnowman
• Serdar Tasci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) bold move attempt on 2018-08-03, warned by myself, move reverted. RM started again by 0716pyhao, consensus not to move to 0716pyhao's proposal
• Riqui Puig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 2018-08-07, no one contested, but actually football project had argued legitimacy of nickname + surname as the candidate of the most common among common names
• Abdul Rahman Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) bold move again from Baba Rahman to Abdul Rahman Baba on 2019-01-12. However, the exiting citation did not support the new article title, e.g. Chelsea press release use Abdul Baba Rahman, BBC use Baba RahmanIndependent (Ireland) use Baba Rahman

The user made repeated attempt to move articles either by C&P or bold move to controversial title, and had been warning before, is there anything to do to stop the user to make controversial move without discussion ? Matthew hk (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Have we tried reaching out to the user directly to warn them about the controversial moves, show them the policy page so they can review it, and ask them to stop? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page it does seem like the editor was notified, although not "warned" per se. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Six bold moves in two years = ANI thread? Levivich 06:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't caught him for his recent (January) bold RM right away despite having 10,000 entire in watch list (may be football articles is decreasing in composition, or my watch list just contain popular footballers). But given his recent 50 edits span for more than 6 months , which already contain 3 bold move, in which Baba Rahman last bold move (carried by other user in 2015) to other title was reverted and have a thread in the talk page to discuss it, i doubt he does not know it is controversial, and he was told by an admin GiantSnowman and other user what WP:RM process for controversial move.

To sum up, either he is a SPA or not, he keep to ignore the message in his talk page about move and he did started a RM for Serdar Tasci after his bold move was reverted, so he can't possibly doesn't know how to tag.

So, can i propose topic ban for him for making any bold and uncontroversial move by himself, which the former he must use WP:RM to start a thread and the latter he must post it in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests? Matthew hk (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A topic ban? Why? No, the problem is the insufficient communication here. You gave them the link to ANI yet they don't come here and try to sort this out(and instead make an edit somewhere else). All their contributions to talk pages are either requested move templates and corrections of those(with no further comments in the discussion), removal of everything on their own talk page, or talk page moves. The correct answer to this problem is an indefinite block(indefinite because of the long time between some of their edits) to make the user communicate properly.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you feel you looks another SPA (or WP:HAND) that most of your recent edit are in WP:ANI and WP:AN only ? Also active in 2016, not active for a long time until a burst of edit in November 2018, and resurface only in this week ? Matthew hk (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This account is no WP:HAND nor is the usage of an account(at least, if it is the only account) for a single purpose a problem. These bursts of activity(or rather, the long time of inactivities) have different reasons. If you look at my recent contributions you will see that I am not trying to escalate problems but the opposite - something that is consistent with the goals of Wikipedia.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This user has been warned numerous times before (March 2017, March 2017, May 2018, August 2018), and still doesn't get it. Given their editing to date, a topic ban from page moves will likely be ignored. I therefore suggest we stop delaying the inevitable and indef if they continue with undiscussed page moves. I don't see any recent edits justifying action at this stage, however. GiantSnowman 13:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Why isn't the reported user responding to comments? M1nhm (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Except the RM, 0716pyhao did not reply to any message in his talk page. It is predicable they did not response to ANI either. Matthew hk (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

In fact, the only edit by them in user talk namespace, is blanking the page . While in talk page namespace, most of them involve RM or bold move. Only comment not related to move is this one Talk:Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone#Track maps of Zorbas and Adrian needed. Matthew hk (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

182.30.190.211 (Suspected to be EurovisionNim)

Recently I done a edit on a semi-small article. The IP been making unnecessary edits such as removing invisible sections of a car article. [252][253]. I have already created a sockpuppet investigation of this suspected IP and I think this should require attention. --Vauxford (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford - Have your updated your SPI report and added these diffs to the evidence statement? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah Yes, I updated the recent diffs on the sockpuppet page. --Vauxford (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford - Great, just making sure. ;-) I know that this SPI has been open for some time. The number of SPI reports filed lately have been more than we typically see on average (I dunno, I guess the moon must be out or something... lol); we're working to get caught up, respond, investigate, handle, and close SPI reports in as timely of a manner as possible. Just understand that it may take a bit more time than what's expected before it starts seeing comments and attention. One way or another, it'll be handled and matters investigated. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

LTA causing rapid disruption, needs immediate block

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.

---

807CB720A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has created a vandalism-only category and is adding pages to it extremely rapidly. I'm rolling them back as I see them, but this user needs a block ASAP. Reported to AIV but no one has responded. Based on the target pages, this is either BMX on WheeIs or Cruizir. Aspening (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2019 (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:182.68.56.106

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.

---

182.68.56.106 (talk · contribs) is the sock of 117.97.142.249 (talk · contribs). Please see Talk:The Voice India Kids, and Ponting @Ian.thomson: as the blocking admin. --B dash (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• @NinjaRobotPirate: Another sock 2401:4900:B9B:4688:5D05:BD53:B143:4847 (talk · contribs). --B dash (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2019 (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:Shaheer Zohaib

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 continuous to upload copyright images despite 30+ warnings, the latest being this. Recommend a block or sanction. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be a discussion at Commons? MPJ-DK (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure. All the warnings were on his en talk page. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: I doubt his current uploads are own work. Just tagged another one. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:53, 16 February 2019 (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.

Sashko1999

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.

---

Sashko1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

Report by Argean

I noticed that this user's strange behavior, changing all the links for demonyms in the infoboxes of various countries, started after being confronted at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, where repeatedly posted new comments with their opinion on how the change of the name of the country should reflect on the change of demonyms. When the discussion there didn't show an obvious consensus on the matter, and the need for consensus was noted by other editors, the user tried to manipulate the discussion by opening new sections to continue supporting their own claims, or by deleting comments by other users, clearly showing signs of WP:PUSH. The user eventually got involved in the aforementioned massive editing, showing signs of WP:POINT behavior to prove that their claims on the specific change are consistent with wikipedia. When confronted that their proposed changes constituted WP:OR and required WP:RfC the user ignored repeatedly the calls or provided insufficient evidence, showing signs of unwillingness to engage in discussion and to adhere to the rules (which also was stated explicitly), stating that their proposed changes are there to make wikipedia better. The user has also made comments to other users that constitute WP:NPA, has tried to disregard others' people capacity to provide arguments, and has tried to perform WP:CANVAS to manipulate an RfC, showing a clear pattern of problematic behavior consistent with a propagandistic agenda, that should be investigated for WP:NOTHERE.

Report by DIYeditor

When I encountered Sashko1999 they were changing every single demonym parameter in country article infoboxes from linking to the article of the same name as the demonym to an article on the demographics of the country. They were marking all the edits as minor so I assumed it was trolling/vandalism, but I saw that they were able to present a somewhat sensible argument about it, and I repeatedly suggested they start an RFC. However it became clear that this editor had been warned a number times about WP:MINOR and seem to be intentionally ignoring the warnings, because their English skill is adequate (although Thomas.W doubted this) and understanding of what a talk page is also seems to be adequate - except for things like utter refusal, no matter how many times warned, to WP:INDENT and stop marking edits MINOR. User seems to feel privileged to ignore whatever portion of messages he chooses and not be interactive. User appears to be a WP:NATIONALIST POV pusher and not really here to build an encyclopedia.

Sanction history

Sashko1999 has a prior history of a topic ban from Macedonia[254], 3RR and NPOV warnings, and being blocked by NeilN for edit warring[255] and violating arbitration decisions[256].

Diffs

• CIR and failure to collaborate, understanding messages, warnings and policies:
  • Completely and stubbornly ignores WP:INDENT (see the mess the user is still leaving on User talk:Sashko1999, Talk:Denmark) [257][258][259][260][261] (etc.)
  • Ignores many WP:MINOR notices [262][263][264]
  • Basic CIR warning by Thomas.W [265]
  • Disruption re: ethnic group warning by Doug Weller [266]
• WP:CANVAS [267]
• WP:CONSENSUS:
  • Refused to understand why an WP:RFC was needed [268][269] (etc.)
  • According to the editor everyone else is wrong and doesn't understand their point [270], [271]
  • Saying what's right is what matters not the rules [272], [273]
  • Warned by NeilN[274] to use talk page if user is ever reverted
  • Additional diffs of examples of not working toward consensus [275]
• WP:DISRUPT Changing massively all the links of the demonyms in the infoboxes without providing adequate rationale is disruptive behavior (see also POINT below)
• WP:NOTHERE Seems to be here to push Bulgarians vs Macedonians-related POV (example here: [276]). Also made a large number of edits in almost every language wikipedia in pages related with Bulgarians. [277]
• WP:NPA Calling people with different opinions hard nationalists [278], [279], or disregarding other editors' capacity [280]
• WP:OR Claiming that will "correct" all the "wrong" links in the infoboxes, based on their own definition of demonym that supports with inadequate resources [281], [282], [283]
• WP:POINT Too many diffs to link, see edit history for his reaction to failing to prevail at Macedonia over some kind of ethnic/nationalist/whatever issue by changing on the demonym links
• WP:PUSH Has repeatedly posted new comments at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, and manipulated the discussion by deleting other comments [284], opening new sections [285] on a matter that was already discussed [[286]], and later trying to hide their pushing behavior by deleting the titles of the new sections [287], [288]

Submitted

Submitted by Argean and DIYeditor at 00:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sanction proposals

Some possibilities:

1. Topic ban from all articles related to countries, nations or ethnic groups
2. Final and official warning to cease all inappropriate behavior
3. Immediate indef
4. No action

Survey

• Indef - This user is fundamentally problematic and is not able to understand or comply with rules. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - This user has repeatedly created controversies, failed to engage in discussion, and showed complete lack of adhering to rules and respecting other editors. The problematic behavior pattern of the user is clearly fundamental and not showing signs of assuming good faith. Argean (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR (with respect to several very basic and essential requirements of participation on this project), and profound WP:DISRUPTION that we have no reason to believe will be alleviated, even if we first tried intermediate sanctions, since this editor does not seem to have any interest in making even basic efforts to respond to community concerns--take your pick. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - WP:NOTHERE. Qualitist (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - This user not willing to comply to the rules. Due to WP:COMPETENCE, WP:NOTHERE and violating WP:CONS, I support indefinitely blocking the user. INeedSupport ^:3 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Switched to no action - The user has made its response here and seems to know how to reach a consensus. No warning is necessary. INeedSupport ^:3 19:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef per Snow Rise, with the understanding that indefinite, as always, is not equivalent by definition to infinite. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 21:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Warn – There were serious issues prompting this ANI report but the editor seems to have changed their behavior since earlier !votes were cast. It appears the editor has stopped editing mainspace disruptively and joined ongoing content discussions. Perhaps they have gotten the message and this change will stick. If so, I think an indef is too harsh here. That said, it would be most helpful if the editor joined this conversation. Pinging Sashko1999 in case that helps. Leviv ich 06:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, In my defence I want to say that I didn't do nothing out of the rules. Yes, i changed the links of the demonyms of the countries because I thought that that's correct, but they were reverted and it was told that we need a concensus about it. Until that we opened discussion here and until now 3 people supported me and one say no but he/she agree with me that there is a problem about this issue. I call and the rest who didn't join until now, to join, to discuss and to vote. Also, I want to say that some people without any concensus decided the articles about the ethnic groups to make them and articles who will look like they cover all the citizens where that ethnic group is dominant, that kind of change was already made to the article about the Danes and I little changed those changed because this is a very serious issue and we first should talk and vote for it. Thank you. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko1999: No explanation of ignoring MINOR, INDENT and ANI notices for so long, without saying anything or asking for clarification? In addition to ignoring those, is I call and the rest who didn't join until now, to join, to discuss and to vote your justification for WP:CANVASSing people you thought would agree with you and asking them to support your position, rather than explain that you understand you are not allowed to do what you did? (I repeat the same below because I have grown accustomed to having to repeat myself many times with this user.) —DIYeditor (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe i made some mistakes, but in the case of the informing other people, I just wanted to join more of them in the discussion, and I texted to those because I saw them discussing about it on the page about one article and I saw that they pretty much understand these things. Btw, I didn't knew that isn't allowed. Here I already invited to join all who didn't until now, doesn't matter did they agree or not with me, it matter to discuss and to resolve the problem. Sashko1999 (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko1999: Again, can you say why it is you ignored those notices? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Because I didn't read them on the beginning, but later I read them. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

This is downright scary.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not notice Also made a large number of edits in almost every language wikipedia in pages related with Bulgarians while we were putting this report together. That is concerning and maybe broader action is in order? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi DIYeditor. Sorry that I didn't make it very clear. I noticed it when I checked the user's global contributions. I have no idea if the user speaks all these languages, but all the edits are in articles related to Bulgarians and by checking quickly some of the edits it seems that the user is changing some of the terms (I have no idea why). Clearly looks like the user is involved in a mission or something in wikipedia and this involves Bulgarians and especially their relation to Macedonians. Argean (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Was not aware of the malice intent of the editor.....though we were just dealing with someone that needed some guidance. Clear that this editor has lost any credibility with the community.--Moxy (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would support banning this user "just" for being here three and a half years and still refusing to indent their talk page contributions, but it's clear that the issues here go much, much deeper than that. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Update 09/02 I just want to notice that the user is ignoring this WP:ANI, and

• continues stubbornly not to WP:INDENT their talk page contributions [289], [290]
• continues to WP:PUSH their WP:NPOV, causing WP:ATPD (same diffs as above)
• trying to perform WP:CANVAS ([291], [292], [293], [294], [295]), with obvious object to cause WP:DISRUPTION that will serve their goal to manipulate (WP:POINT) the discussion on Talk:Republic of Macedonia, and circumvent the need for WP:CONSENSUS. --Argean (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Disappointing to see the editor ignore this thread....clear indication their not willing to engage the community in a normal manner.--Moxy (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Update Feb 12 User has been notified 3 times about this discussion ([296][297][298]). Like everything else it seems to take an indeterminate number of attempts to get their attention and help them understand. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I strongly urge an admin to please take a look at this, evaluate the discussion and, at the very least, block Sashko1999 until they are willing to participate in this discussion. Currently they are still making the same or similar changes and arguments (two dozen today, a dozen and a half yesterday, and so on) with the same poor effects (apart from anything else, their English is...idiosyncratic and non-standard). Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 21:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Editor's recent contribs show they have stopped marking all their edits minor and have started to indent. Progress. The PA diffs don't seem very serious to me. A lot of the diffs posted in the report are 1–2 years old. Any recent diffs of problems? Leviv ich 02:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This clown has wasted enough of my time already personally. If you find it acceptable that they ignored like 20 directions (with link) to indent (without even saying anything about it?) and aren't coming here to explain why that was, after 3 (at least) links to ANI indicating that there is a discussion about them, then I hope you are the one who has to deal with this person in the future. And no they are still marking non-minor edits to articles as minor. This (etc) is not listed on WP:MINOR as a minor edit. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

    True, that is not a minor edit. But it is a correct edit. Leviv ich 03:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

    What's going to stop them from continuing to obstinately ignore policy links and other advice, and continuing to make sweeping potentially contentious changes to whole classes of articles in fits of conviction that everyone else is wrong? Being BOLD is one thing but the user had already been instructed by an admin to use the talk page if ever reverted (among other warnings), and their first response to the changes being reverted was to change it right back. If this is a good faith editor who just happens to have an interest in some nationalist-related issues, it is a very difficult one who does not seem to want to play by the rules without teeth being pulled. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

    I think this ANI report made a difference, judging by their recent contribs. And judging by the ongoing discussions here and here, the editor isn't alone in their view on the underlying content disputes. There was a serious problem leading up to this report, but it may have subsided, and I'm always in favor of alternatives to indef'ing opponents in a content dispute. Leviv ich 05:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  The issue with the discussions is great, if he is no longer beating the horse, though the couple i checked yesterday seemed to be rehashing the same arguments. I am more concerned with his mainspace edits, which are still questionable or outright wrong. Though i lent my support to an indef above, that is a strong and potentially heavy-handed response; the best outcome would be if he responds to community concerns, and i'm not certain yet that is happening. I hope to be proven incorrect. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly, arguing on the talk pages is one thing, although the user hasn't improved their communication skills and is merely repeating over and over the same thing rather than engaging in discussion [299], [300], but disrupting the main articles to make a point and failing to see what is the problem with that is very concerning for me. The slowly disruptive edits at Danes (most still marked as WP:MINOR), just in the last couple of days [301], seem as an effort to separate the meaning of "nation" and "ethnicity", so the user can prove their claim that the propose is the people to read about the ethnic groups(sic) ([302]), and eventually try to justify their claims on delinking the demonyms, that in turn is being used as a means to make a WP:POINT at Talk:North Macedonia. That particular manipulative train of actions is for me a strong indication that the user is WP:NOTHERE to contribute, but rather to make a statement on their own POV, and they will keep disrupting wikipedia in order to do so. Anyway, the user has now been notified 5 (!) times about this ANI ([303],[304],[305], [306], [307]), so if they continue to ignore it, probably means that they don't really care about it. --Argean (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, I read the discussion and I want to say that I didn't do nothing out of the rules. Yes, i changed the links of the demonyms of the countries because I thought that that's correct, but they were reverted and it was told that we need a concensus about it. Until that we opened discussion here and until now 3 people supported me and one say no but he/she agree with me that there is a problem about this issue. I call and the rest who didn't join until now, to join, to discuss and to vote. Also, I want to say that some people without any concensus decided the articles about the ethnic groups to make them and articles who will look like they cover all the citizens where that ethnic group is dominant, that kind of change was already made to the article about the Danes and I little changed those changed because this is a very serious issue and we first should talk and vote for it. Thank you. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sashko, I think I should make you aware that it does not matter what the result of that discussion ultimately is, because you hosted it in the wrong place: please see WP:advice pages. Groups of editors working on a WikiProject are expressly disallowed from creating their own idiosyncratic rules about a chunk of articles they believe to be within their special purview/authority. So basically, even if the discussion had gone your way, you still would not have prevailed and been able to reverse the result of any earlier failures to gain consensus on various article talk pages, because those discussions were appropriate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussions whereas your discussion at WP:WPC was not a permissible way to establish a valid consensus to change policy. In order to make a change to our guidelines, such that you create a new default rule for all articles of a type, you need to host such discussion on the talk page for a relevant policy, guideline, or MoS page which will itself be changed to introduce the rule.

Sometimes in the alternative, one can host a discussion in WP:VPP or other central community space and then transport the language into a policy, but what one definitely cannot do is get together with a group of editors interested in a given topic at a WikiProject, decide for themselves that their particularly keen interest gives them special authority to ignore the WP:PROPOSAL process and decide by fiat how all articles of a given sort are to be treated, with regard to this or that issues. There is long-standing community consensus against that, as it is recognized as unwieldy--what if another WikiProject (or two, or five) creates their own idiosyncratic rules and there are hundreds of articles both (or all) could claim "ownership" of--disruptive, and against our normal consensus procedures, and this broad community consensus has been codified by ArbCom in numerous high profile cases over the years.

All of that said, I wouldn't be embarrassed about not understanding this as a newer editor. Indeed, as you can see, no one else !voting in that discussion realized any result would be void, and these discussions constantly pop up her at ANI where someone has to point out to involved editors that they discussion they are arguing over has no effect anyway; it's one of our less well-promoted rules of consensus, and we've needed to move it into a more high profile policy page (or give it it's own page) for a while--it just has never gotten done. Anyway, that's just a note for all parties here to walk away with, not criticism of you in particular. I do have additional misgivings about how you have approached things, but now that you are here discussing matters, I hope those can be resolved without the need for sanction, and I'll try to stop back by to comment as to such matters (and hopefully be able change my !vote above) as discussion progresses. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko: Wait, you still think you did nothing wrong? Ignoring WP:INDENT, WP:MINOR and WP:ANI notices for so long was not wrong? You are still going to insist WP:CANVASSing wasn't wrong? I didn't do nothing out of the rules and I call and the rest who didn't join until now, to join, to discuss and to vote to me is just more evidence action should be taken here. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment @Sashko1999: As I already posted at your talk page, I do acknowledge the fact that you are paying more attention to your edits, but it's not really helpful that you deny making serious mistakes. The WP:CANVAS that you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries is a serious breach of guidelines and I'm worried by the fact that you still claim that are people supporting you there, even if they were [[WP:CANVAS]ed in the RfC. I'm also worried by the fact that all your previous bans and warnings were due to edits that you did in articles related to ethnic groups in general or to [[Macedonians (ethnic group}]] ([308], [309], [310] and your recent history of edits show that you are once more involved in disputes in the same area of topics. How can we expect that you will stop this pattern if you still claim that you did nothing wrong? --Argean (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, ok, that probably was a mistake, and I apology here now, but I explained why I changed the links of the demonyms and I had just good intention. Also, after we opened a discussion about it, I think most of us saw that they is a problem with the current linking of the demonyms, so, let's talk and resolve that. As for the my previous ban about the Macedonians (ethnic group), that was in 2017 and I had 1 year ban about it, but after that I didn't do nothing wrong which is so much serious to be banned again. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Leviv ich said he has changed his behavior. Can we give him more chance? Maybe a warning is enough if he promises.M1nhm (talk)

The editor has expressed a willingness to do better and has said they regret that they violated procedural requirements that they did not understand. It may very well be that the WP:CIR issues ill prove too substantial in the long run (especially through the language barrier they are clearly dealing with), but given their engagement here now and what I perceive to be a genuine effort to to come to terms with policy, I agree an immediate indef may now be excessive. I think the discussion should be left open a bit longer for the purposes allowing some thing to be explained to Sashko, and I still have concerns that they could be brought back here before too long, but I'd endorse WP:ROPE at this point. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

What I was hoping for from Sashko1999 was something like "I ignored the links because [reason], and in the future I will pay attention to links." —DIYeditor (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

If his apology is not true he will come back here soon.M1nhm (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Update (16 February): Can somebody please now topic-ban this editor, for lack of competence if nothing else? They are now meddling in all the rewriting of Macedonia-related articles following the recent "North Macedonia" renaming, and edits like this [311] are really beyond the pale (e.g. changing "Macedonia" to "North Macedonia" in a sentence that is explicitly about what the name of the country was prior to the recent renaming, or in another sentence that is clearly about the geographical region in an historical context much prior to even the foundation of the state). We already have more than enough less-than-clueful editing from over-eager and inexperienced people in these articles; we really don't need this level of WP:CIR mixed in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Change number 1: In 1014, the Byzantine Emperor Basil II defeated the armies of Tsar Samuil of Bulgaria, and within four years the Byzantines restored control over the Balkans (including North Macedonia) for the first time since the 7th century. Changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia because the article is about North Macedonia and here we are talking about something happened in the country which name today is this, and not Macedonia.

Change number 2: Over the centuries Rumelia Eyalet was reduced in size through administrative reforms, until by the nineteenth century it consisted of a region of central Albania and south-western North Macedonia with its capital at Manastir or present-day Bitola. Changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia because here we are talking about today's countries Albania and North Macedonia, and not about Albania and non-existent Macedonia. Also, Monastir or present-day Bitola is in today's North Macedonia.

Change number 3: To aid the implementation of this policy, some 50,000 Serbian army and gendermerie were stationed in North Macedonia. Changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia because here we are talking about an event happened in today's North Macedonia.

Change number 4: By 1940 about 280 Serbian colonies (comprising 4,200 families) were established as part of the government's internal colonisation program (initial plans envisaged 50,000 families settling in North Macedonia). Changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia, the explanation is the same as in the change number 3.

To say and that where we are talking about the Roman Province of Macedonia or the region of Macedonia, nothing is changed, here are two examples.

The Romans established the Province of Macedonia in 146 BC. By the time of Diocletian, the province had been subdivided between Macedonia Prima ("first Macedonia") on the south, encompassing most of the kingdom of Macedon, and Macedonia Salutaris (known also as Macedonia Secunda, "second Macedonia") on the north, encompassing partially Dardania and the whole of Paeonia; most of the country's modern boundaries fell within the latter, with the city of Stobi as its capital.[49] Roman expansion brought the Scupi area under Roman rule in the time of Domitian (81–96 AD), and it fell within the Province of Moesia. Whilst Greek remained the dominant language in the eastern part of the Roman empire, Latin spread to some extent in Macedonia.

Slavic tribes settled in the Balkan region including North Macedonia by the late 6th century AD. During the 580s, Byzantine literature attests to the Slavs raiding Byzantine territories in the region of Macedonia, later aided by Bulgars. Historical records document that in c. 680 a group of Bulgars, Slavs and Byzantines led by a Bulgar called Kuber settled in the region of the Keramisian plain, centred on the city of Bitola, forming a second route for the Bulgar definitive settlement on the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century. Presian's reign apparently coincides with the extension of Bulgarian control over the Slavic tribes in and around Macedonia. The Slavic tribes that settled in the region of Macedonia converted to Christianity around the 9th century during the reign of Tsar Boris I of Bulgaria. Sashko1999 (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Not seeing any problem with that edit. Happy to see that Sashko responded so quickly with an explanation. Not happy to see an editor's editing referred to as "meddling", since we're the encyclopedia that anyone can edit... Leviv ich 20:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Huh, "not seeing any problem"? Did you even read the diff? Did you see the line where he inserted the claim that the country was called "Severna Makedonija" "prior to February 2019", turning the entire sentence into a self-contradictory opposite of what it meant to say? Did you see the lines where he used "North Macedonia", as if it was a country name, for events that happened in 1940, i.e. before even the "Republic of Macedonia" existed, let alone under that name? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Severna Makedonija was a mistake already fixed by another editor. Which of his changes from "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" to "North Macedonia" was incorrect? Leviv ich 06:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Severna Makedonija was really a unintentional mistake, I apology about it, if I wanted intentionally to change the name, I will changed and in Albanian, Turkish, Romani, Serbian/Bosnian and Aromanian language, but I'm not crazy to do that because the name of the country prior February 2019 was Macedonia, officially Republic of Macedonia. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If I understand the objection correctly, it is like saying something happened in Russia that actually happened in the Soviet Union. This user seems intent on pushing certain "narratives". Or it could be simple gross incompetence. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, during the Middle Ages Macedonia didn't exist as a country, during the Ottoman period (from the mid-14th to the early 20th century), also didn't exist, during the 20s and 30s years of the 20th century also didn't exist, so, all this things didn't happened in then-Macedonia, they happened in today's North Macedonia. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

So hasn't Sashko1999 been ban-evading all the time?

According to the DS logs at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2017#Macedonia and the enforcing admin's messages at [312], Sashko1999 was not only blocked for a year under Balkans discretionary sanctions in April 2017, but also put under an indefinite topic-ban from all topics related to Macedonia. I see no evidence anywhere that this sanction was ever rescided. Sashko1999 seems to have simply ignored it from the first day his block expired and has been breaking it ever since. Can somebody please reinforce this ban now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 17 February 2019 (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 Mhayes3 vandalising MTA Regional Bus operations 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.

---

User @Mhayes3: has been edit warring with me for quite some time now under several IPs since i don't currently have an account. He has been undoing my edits consistently to his factually incorrect information. I have left brief messages in the edit summary and on his talk page. My efforts have all failed. Therefore, I am calling for the blocking of this user. 64.223.164.130 (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

MTA Regional Bus Operations doesn't appear to have any conflicts going on; it's only gotten one edit this month and only seven in the last four months. Are you talking about MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet? Mhayes3 has restored a bunch of what you added there, by the way. Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What does "i don't currently have an account" mean? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You viewed the wrong page. And i was stating that i edit through an ip. The MTA regional bus operations bus fleet is where the dispute is taking place. 64.223.164.130 (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2019 (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.

Thoughtfulsea123

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 keeps removing CSD U5 template on their userpage, can an admin please delete this page under u5? Thanks. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:53, 18 February 2019 (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.

Unexperienced user keeps submitting my rough draft for review

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.

---

Iichiroh Ohhira continues to submit my unfinished draft of Shanelle Nyasiase (they’ve done it 3 times now!) for review without my permission when it is NOWHERE near complete or and isn’t contributing constructively to complete it before submission. It’s vandalism and annoying as hell. I’m sitting on 100 drafts right now, while I’m willing to take any help that people want to contribute, I’m not going to continue putting up with people disrupting it. Block this user! Trillfendi (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe if you asked this user in a more friendly way than this you would be able to resolve this issue without posting here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

NONE OF US OWN ARTICLES. from Trillfendi's userpage. Hmmmmmmmm... SITH (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Subject likely fails WP:NMODEL anyway. Legacypac (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Nobody owns articles, and anyway from the edit history of the draft, it seems the user who added the most to it was Iichiroh Ohhira. Said user hasn't made many edits, so might not be familiar with our policies and method of operation. I think the best course of action here would have been to let the article go through AFC, where it would likely have been declined. This would have been a chance for the new user to maybe learn the ropes. Filer took a rather uncivil approach in confronting user, and ran to ANI quickly. Suggest that this boomerang on filer with a warning on civility, and to not bite newbies. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: “Nobody owns articles” is just common sense; there are people on this website who take over an article then remove everyone else puts because it doesn’t align with what they like. Happens a lot over at a certain SI Swimsuit model’s article but I won’t name names. That’s not the same as saying “no one else can edit my drafts”. A few of my drafts such as Alexina Graham have been submitted by other users who ACTUALLY contributed the proper information for it to it for it to be approved. I don’t care that Iichiroh Oohira contributes to the article but what they have contributed is NOT enough to keep submitting it for review when the article is only two goddamn sentences right now. The article draft is nowhere near complete. With that inexperience, having made ONLY 36 Wikipedia edits at all, they obviously don’t know what they’re doing and keep submitting it just for hell. And what they did contribute had to be rewritten. If the article had gone through AfC it would declined because it’s not done! So that’s why I’m mad this brute keeps doing this. Simple. If they wanted to submit it themselves and “experience” the AfC process the least they could do is add unvaguebcareer information such as campaigns, shows, and editorials, not “she was born in Ethiopia.” and thinking that’s enough for an article. Trillfendi (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: The model does meet NMODEL (anyone who even follows fashion knows) having been profiled by the likes of the Wall Street Journal, Dazed, Harper’s Bazaar, Vogue, InStyle, and part of a New York Times piece, but clearly the draft has not been updated yet to include that information to continuously be submitted like this! That’s the problem. Point blank. Trillfendi (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the model meets NMODEL isn't germane to this discussion. Trillfendi came here to bring up someone being disruptive by submitting his drafts for review before they're ready. Is the disruption going to be addressed, or are you all going to keep taking digs at him until he gets mad and quits? Iichiroh Ohhira hasn't edited since 2016 (and only has a few edits), then suddenly reappeared and magically found this totally unrelated editor's drafts? Does anyone see something wrong here? WOPR (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you suggest be done, WOPR? Please AGF. Iichiroh Ohhira doesn't edit regularly, made one edit early this morning and hasn't had a chance to see the notice about this discussion. Maybe we should wait for a response to see if they realize that their edits are problematic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A very quick check shows of Iichiroh Ohhira's few contributions have been to the topic of modeling. I don't think there's anything malicious going on here at all on the moving user's end. Having a draft moved into mainspace by another user can be annoying, but it's not vandalism, and if anything, I'm more concerned with the initial attempt to resolve the conflict. The article appears to be in mainspace now, so I think we should all just move on with a gentle reminder to Trillfendi to WP:AGF when initially trying to resolve a conflict. SportingFlyer T·C 05:10, 18 February 2019 (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:Edward'sworld

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.

---

Problematical WP:User page, maybe WP:User name. WP:COI? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:48, 17 February 2019 (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 block some 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.

---

User:Frank marine is edit the page due to translate from thai article with no english grammar knowledge. I tired to help him prove the article why Wikipeida doen't has a countermeasure to stop this guy edit any page in Wikipedia. Every article that he edit is non-sense and all translate from Thai language from Google Translate with no re-check. I need your help to block him and please check every article that he make which is bullshit article and bullshit action. Thank You --58.8.169.80 (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Which article, we do need to see what the problem is.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please notify the user as it is required to do so. I have done it for you. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, can you say what is wrong with (say) [[313]] this edit?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

the name of the regiment force don't need a point after it such as Thai Navy Seal not Thai Navy Seal. Are you understand it? 58.8.169.80 (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Nor do we need links to non existent pages either. I also note he did not attempt to reinsert the full stop. So I am not seeing why he needs to be banned.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

58.8.169.80, I don't see that you have ever posted to an article talk page or user talk page. Please start a discussion with editors you have a conflict with about the content that is under dispute. Your first step should NOT be to come to ANI asking for an editor to receive a block. ANI should be where you come after all other means of dispute resolution have been tried. I see that this editor has not responded to messages on their talk page but you should make an attempt to communicate with them before asking for a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 18 February 2019 (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 conflict)

• Re: Frank marine (talk · contribs) - It should be pointed out that despite this ANI, and the numerous notifications of problematic editing posted to this user's talk page, he has never once responded. In fact, he not not made a single post to any talk page since joining Wikipedia. Communication is important in a collaborative project such as this, and refusing to engage with others, whether it is to acknowledge problematic edits or more importantly, work toward resolving a content dispute, is itself a serious problem. I agree with Liz, that the OP should certainly attempt to discuss issues with this editor (and any other) before coming here and seeking a block. But if Frank marine will not engage with this editor, or even respond to this ANI, then perhaps a block is called for, until they show a willingness to communicate. Blocks such as this are not at all uncommon.

  Post edit conflict addendum; Softlavender, I was typing out my post when you closed this discussion. Please consider undoing this close so that my comment, as well as any others might be taken into consideration. Thank you. - wolf 07:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • He only has one single notice of problematic editing on his usertalk [314]. Also, discussion of article content belongs on the talkpage of the article, not at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Softlavender: Ok, so when this editor doesn't respond on the article talk page, what then? The OP has to start with ANI all over again? Why not have this dealt with now? Leave this open and give the editor a chance to respond. If/when he doesn't, then have an admin decide what action, if any, should be taken next. Seems reasonable no? 09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the user is not listening, is he edit warring over this or attempting to revert?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Help on 2019 Pulwama attack and Reactions to the 2019 Pulwama attack

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.

---

2-3 editors seem to be engaged in an edit war, reverting each other's edits without clear consensus. Can an admin or anyone else mediate and resolve the issue? There seems to be a good amount of constructive time being wasted over there. 119.82.70.109 (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Pulwama attack fully protected for two days. The reactions article was nominated for deletion, but someone closed that with a speedy keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Because someone raised the issue on my talk page, I'll explicitly say I don't care if anyone wants to unprotect the page or try some other solution, such as page restrictions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2019 (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.

Someone had made a threatening video.

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 person suspected to be behind these IPs (2601:4C4:4000:C420:697B:3F4C:F1C0:CC37 and 2601:4C4:4000:C420:0:0:0:0/64) had made a threatening video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=niT802WDwTQ) aganist the user who block that person's IP address.

Not only that but another user by the name of Hukum mati salah (Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVgUiPMLuCOw6vJhb0EW-GQ) made a userpage threatening to kill people and the police according to translation.

Please investigate these people. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It have nothing to do when those threat was outside wikipedia. For the first video, despite is not registered , still it may violate the privacy when discussing the manner of the user outside wikipedia. There was a ANI thread about a user's twitter account, and all of the page history was hidden and the name of that twitter account was redacted . May be this email may help for the first link oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org

For the second link, not related to wikipedia. Matthew hk (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, after you adding the user page of Hukum mati salah in wikipedia, it qualify for using emergency@wikimedia.org email. Matthew hk (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

But i believed Hukum mati salah is not related to youtube user of the same name. Matthew hk (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Check the comments section of videos #1 and #2 RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2019 (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:Hukum mati salah is WP:NOTHERE and recreate attack page

(Non-administrator comment) Post-close: Hukum mati salah had recreated the attack page User:Hukum mati salah which was speedy deleted, so he is WP:NOTHERE and please block. Matthew hk (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting the user name means 'death penalty wrong'. While it's a sentiment I share, I wonder if it's also a WP:UAA case. BTW, I can confirm the user page says "kill police, kill president, kill person, kill soldier, kill riot police, ..... kill god, we war, we steal arms" Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic, did it quality for WP:revision deletion and redated the youtube link? It is not well related to wikipedia and it seem a private information. Also, the linkage of the alleged youtube account and wiki user Hukum mati salah is weak (the second youtube user just spamming the link of the wiki user Hukum mati salah), it may be an impersonator or someone want to promote the youtube account (as the channel's video is not related to wikipedia, despite the allegation on the youtube comment, unlike previous ANI thread regarding wikipedia unofficial youtube tutorial) Matthew hk (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Userpage deleted and account blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Second post-block comment. The user still have access to his talk page at User talk:Hukum mati salah, he still turn it into attack page. Matthew hk (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:IDHT at Talk:The Voice India Kids

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.

---

Various IPs have been disrupting things at Talk:The Voice India Kids for the last few days. The article is not protected, but an edit request keeps getting placed for some reason. At least four different editors have responded to the edit request, all noting that the article is not protected and that the user should be able to make the edit. After each response, the IP removes the response and reopens the request, with escalating threats. Yesterday User:B dash and I were taken to WP:AN3, which was boomeranged back at the IP who reported it. Based on the "final warning" in the latest request, it's quite likely that I'm being reported there again now. The IPs have not responded to requests for further details as to why they can't edit, so I have no idea how to respond to this at this point. Can someone take a look? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Note - with the bouncing IPs it didn't seem feasible to place notice on the user talk page, so I placed a notice at the article talk page, where it was also reverted. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I blocked a few IP addresses and semi-protected the talk page for 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This has continued, Can further action be taken?RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

K6ka blocked the IP for block evasion, and I semi-protected the talk page for 3 days--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2019 (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.

Walterblue222 - NOTHERE, TEND, and CIVIL issues

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.

---

Walterblue222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to propose an indef block in Walterblue222 for WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA, and WP:TEND.

In this user's short time here on Wikipedia (12 January 2019), they've managed to be disruptive at Color-blind casting, Whitewashing in film, and Feminism.

Examples of what I consider to be tendentious editing are:

• 01:28, 16 February 2019 "Examples of associated cases: removed Prince of Persia example - Jake Gyllenhaal being half-Jewish is irrelevant, as Ashkenazi Jews are not "white"."
• 20:48, 15 February 2019 "Examples of associated cases: removed inapplicable Johnny Depp example - he is of Cherokee, French, Irish and German ancestry."
• 21:07, 15 February 2019 Inserting WP:OR regarding Black actors
  • same here and here
• This entire discussion: Talk:Feminism#Deceptive_Omission_of_Defining_Terms
• 16:47, 21 January 2019 Changing "White" to "Caucasian" and two list additions
  • same here
• 01:31, 16 February 2019 "Examples of associated cases: removed Short Circuit and Short Circuit 2 examples - Fisher Stevens is a Jewish actor playing an Indian character; Ashkenazi Jews are not "white"."
• 01:40, 16 February 2019 "Examples of associated cases: removed example 'Show Boat' - none of the sources provided give any information that Ava Gardner was fully "white", and it has also sometimes been claimed that "Ava had African-American, Native American, or Melungeon ancestry." While this claim is not verifiable, it is also not verifiable that she was "white" (based on the sources provided)."
• 14:35 16 February 2019 " Kind of similar to the "we waz kangs" absurdity, where "blacks" claim that their ancestors were kings and queens and royalty, and try to steal the heritage of Egyptians (who were Pharaohs anyway, not Kings)."
  • This appears to be a reference to Hotep. When I told the user to not use the article's talk page as a forum, these were the user's replies which include the usual "no, you": [315] [316] [317] [318]
• On my user talk page, this user has tried repeatedly to claim that "blackwashing" is a thing and "obviously takes place". [319], [320]
• 14:34 18 February 2019 "removed "Annihilation" - Natalie Portman and Jennifer Jason Leigh are both Ashkenazi Jews, not "white"."
• 14:47 18 February 2019 "removed Scarlett Johansson from the 'Ghost in the Shell' example, as she is an Ashkenazi Jew, not "white".".
• 14:48 18 February 2019 "Scarlett Johansson is an Ashkenazi Jew, not a "white actress".".
• 14:53 18 February 2019 "removed example "I Don't Know How She Does It"; Olivia Munn is at least half Chinese, with smaller amounts of Scottish, German, and Scots-Irish, and remote French Huguenot ancestry, not "white".".
• 15:03 18 February 2019 "removed example 'Star Trek Into Darkness'; Khan Noonien Singh was never of Indian descent, he was a genetically augmented human. Additionally, Benedict Cumberbatch plays a different character than Ricardo Montalbán as 'Into Darkness' is in an alternate timeline.".

Examples of CIVIL, NPA, and ASPERSIONS violations:

• 15:03, 2 February 2019 "responding to the blatant, petty lies of Mutt Lunker"
• 14:24, 17 February 2019 - Personal attacks
• 15:59, 17 February 2019 and 18:06 17 February 2019 - Typical "I'm the one being attacked" replies
• 00:18 18 February 2019 Accusing others of "blatantly lying"
• I'm not even sure what this is

EvergreenFir (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow.

"On my user talk page, this user has tried repeatedly to claim that "blackwashing" is a thing and "obviously takes place"." - It does, and I have provided examples of this. Your denial of this is clearly not coming from a neutral point of view.

When you claimed I was "referencing Hotep", I was not referencing Hotep, and explained this to you.

I removed examples from Whitewashing in film because they were not applicable. "White" and "Ashkenazi Jew" are NOT the same, and actors that are Ashkenazi Jews should NOT be used as examples of "whitewashing" because they are not "white". The United States Supreme Court even had a ruling not too long ago confirming that Ashkenazi Jews were a race, and not to be conflated with "whites".

I haven't provided any "Original Research" regarding "black" actors.

You have repeatedly accused me of motives that are not applicable, such as the Hotep claim, and are now trying to block me based on things that I have already explained to you, yet you think your opinions and accusations are accurate despite being invalid and untrue.

If someone claims something that is false, it is a lie. Trying to block me for calling a lie a lie is absurd.

I am here to collaborate, add to, and correct mistakes when I see them and can verify that they are not correct; not to be disruptive as you claim. Walterblue222 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify I think you were referencing Hotep#Hotep_movement. Also lovely reply on your talk page to this ANI notice ([321]). EvergreenFir (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, but you are still incorrect; I wasn't referencing Hotep#Hotep movement. I don't appreciate what seems to be sarcasm - "lovely reply on your talk page to this ANI notice" - is this sarcasm? I always try to be straightforward and accurate, whereas you seem to use a lot of sarcasm and think that your opinion matters more than anyone elses, and even more than fact. What did you expect me to say, thank you? "I don't appreciate your repeated personal attacks, demeaning attitude, unjustified reversions, and blatant lies about me and my motivations" - I stand by this comment, and you continue to prove its validity. Walterblue222 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2019 (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.

RightTruthTeller

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

May well be an Sock of a banned account, they are however (as this edit summery makes clear [[322]]), not here to build an encyclopedia but are here to fight the good fight (and a clear SPA).Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If you think the user is a sockpuppet, I'd recommend filing at WP:SPI. Edit: But upon review the user's edits, it does seem they are NOTHERE and WP:RGW. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If they are a sock, they got blocked early into their original account's activity, or else they are are attempting a bluff, as they dispaly zero familiarity with our WP:OR and sourcing standards: [323], [324]. I do think this is looking likely to end in a WP:NOTHERE block based on their TP comments thus far, to say nothing of the sandbox comments (apparently now revdelled) which could not be a more explicit statement of ideological agenda. I wouldn't argue against a prophylactic block under the circumstances, but heavy warnings, some coaching on basic policies and, and a bit of WP:ROPE (with very clear indications that they are already on the cusp of sanctions despite their just having arrived here) would be my preference. Unless Steven can put a finer point on the sock issue, that is. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The name and tone seems familiar, but mainly the name. It might just be the same kind of person is going to pick the same kind of name.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, please don't forget, you are obliged to leave a notification on the user page of any party whose behaviour you raise as the topic of a thread here. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have notified RightTruthTeller. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry thought i had, Guess I got it mixed up wit the many posts I made there before.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

RightTruthTeller has not edited in the past couple of days. If disruption resumes, we can evaluate and take appropriate action at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello people, It is I. I would like to assure you that this in in fact my first WikiPedia account, not a 'sock'. I simply created the account when I saw a piece of information on the site that wasn't quite true. I appreciate your concerns, I am most certainly not a second-account troll, everything I do is out of pure goodwill and a feeling of responsibility to the truth. Yours, RightTruthTeller (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)RightTruthTeller

Welcome to the project, RightTruthTeller. I think, given the lack of more particular evidence of socking, we can WP:assume good faith with regard to this being your first activity on Wikipedia. However, that being the case, you are going to want to take a good long look at a number of our guiding editorial policies, including especially: WP:verification, WP:reliable sources, WP:No original research, and WP:neutral point of view. It may seem counter-intuitive at first, but we actually tend to focus less on whether we, as individuals, credit a statement in an article as "true" and more on whether it is "verifiable" (meaning that a given assertion or other piece of article content can be supported with a cite to a reliable source--see policy linked above for definition). This helps keep our articles free of the idiosyncratic bias of individual editors and cuts down on what would otherwise be unending debates about the "truth" of a matter which would otherwise grip every article and talk page. Understanding these policies is key to productive and smooth contribution to the encyclopedia in any area, but it is particularly essential for those who wish to contribute (especially early into their time here) in controversial areas. Again, welcome to the project, and don't be afraid to reach out if you have questions--most community members (myself included) will be more than happy to share the benefit of their experience with regard to a direct inquiry, and there is is also the WP:Teahouse if you don't wish to go hunting for someone. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray

DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in gross POV pushing that he neither understands what he is editing about, neither he shows any willingness to accept where he is completely wrong. He deliberately misrepresents sources and policies to justify his POV and resorts to personal attacks and bludgeoning so often that he has become a timesink.

• On Human rights abuses in Kashmir  he has been whitewashing human rights abuses by Indian army[325] while hyping the abuses from militants and Pakistani army. He misrepresents sources and frequently removes long standing content which he don't like by making a false claim that the content was violating copyrights or  NFCC,[326] Since last few days he is removing more content by providing the same fallacious reasoning,[327] and making threats on edit summaries.[328] despite being told otherwise on talk page.[329]

• He has been misrepresenting sources and showing his inability to understand English by not getting the fact that "counterterrorists" means excess carried out with an intention to counter terrorists. Not that it means excess carried out during "counter terrorism operations". It is ironic that he has been harassing other editor on talk page by saying "it appears to me as an English language related WP:CIR."[330] Though anyone can tell that DBigXray is the one with CIR.
• After getting reporting for gaming WP:1RR rule by removing the same content without getting consensus, he made a personal attack on me that I belong to a "{{tq|sock/meat farm",[331] see WP:ASPERSIONS.
• Has been told by 2 editors and an admin[332] that there is no violation of copyvio or NFCC, still he was not agreeing.
• I reverted him again,[333] and he quickly reverted me but this time he reverted claiming "no consensus for adding these either, first complete the talk page discussion",[334] despite he never gained consensus to remove the longstanding content at first place. He also left a 3RR warning on talk page of mine when I am nowhere near 3RR. His recent talk page comments can be best described as WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALL.[335][336]

• I commented on a DYK[337] where the concerning article is created by a different editor. DBigXray interpreted my comments as "battle grounds to attack editors".[338] His incivility and aspersions include "unfortunately i am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts... Mehrajmir13 (who seems to be here only to stall the DYK and get rid of the article)"[339] He also falsely claimed that I "already confessed above that you are going through" his contributions, when I haven't and "consensus on the talk page is to continue with the current title and article"[340] when multiple editors on talk page are discussing the name change.[341][342]

He has restored to mass bludgeon the talk page where the consensus was being developed to change the name of the article.[343]

Other recent examples

• Makes 4 reverts in 3 days to label Zabiuddin Ansari as a "Islamic fundamentalist" and a terrorist, in violation of WP:TERRORIST[344] then engages in IDHT on talk page.[345] Extreme labels like "Islamic fundamentalist" are not even supported by any of the sources he is using.[346]
• Labels Ajmal Kasab as a terrorist  by reverting other user then bludgeons on talk page.[347]
• After one editor brought two above articles to WP:BLPN,[348] and other uninvolved editor replied[349] DBigXray WP:BLUDGEONed the section to the degree that now no one would touch the section even with 100 feet pole.[350]

These examples also describes the pattern of DBigXray, to edit war by misrepresenting sources and engage in gross POV pushing, then bludgeon the talk pages so that no one would participate or remain interested in the article in question for any longer. Further evidence of POV pushing and deceptive editing can be seen on Kunan Poshpora incident in which he was whitewashing the entire incident into Indian Army's favor by using misleading edit summaries. His prolonged edit warring on Rafale deal controversy and IDHT over there also appears to be disruptive.  MehrajMir (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Mehrajmir13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• I would note here that this user above has been editing with an extreme anti-India bias at Human rights abuses in Kashmir diff and Kunan Poshpora incident [351], on Human rights abuses in Kashmir instead of joining the talk page discussions or WP:DR for content disputes, he has tried tag teaming with an IP (who is clearly someones sock) at WP:AN3 [352] and when AN3 did not work out he tried to disrupt a DYK I had submitted and is now trying out ANI here.
• The IP had joined Mehrajmir13 and filed an AN3 case against me with false claims about EdJohnston, within a short period of time without any invitation Mehrajmir13 reached AN3 to argue (diff) against me and to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) It did not work out as expected [353] after which they tried other ways [354] to get sanctions on me.
• Regarding the massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA act [355], I had raised my objections on the talk page [356] since I had felt that it was both COPYVIO and undue. It was later clarified that it may not be considered COPYVIO which I accepted. On the talk page I had stated that [357] this copying of entire AFSPA act is still undue and an article on Human rights should discuss the implications of the AFSAP Act and not just copy paste the entire act in the Human rights article instead of giving a link to the act itself [358]. After staying away for a week, and instead of joining the discussion Mehrajmir13 again restored the disputed content [359] into the article.
• Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support (diff) an Edit warring report on an article with 1RR restriction, but at the same time he is outraged for getting [360] the standard Edit-warring template for his continued edit-warring (diff, diff, diff) on the same article.
• After having a content dispute and trying an AN3 complaint against me, Mehrajmir13 hounded me (diff) to a recent DYK, that I had submitted. The DYK had already been approved by a reviewer [361] and yet Mehrajmir13 tried stalling an already approved DYK, on entirely frivolous grounds and asking for rename or merge. Mehrajmir13 was also warned [362] by another editor WBG on Mehrajmir13's frivolous thread (diff) on the article's talk page.
• The discussion at Talk:Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir among several editors that included User:Hamster Sandwich, User:DiplomatTesterMan, User:Kautilya3, MarkZusab showed that the consensus was against any renaming or merging of the article since the current article was a consensus title, that had been decided after long discussion on the talk page as well as WP:TEAHOUSE [363][364][365] [366] [367].
• On the DYK page, When I noted that he has hounded me [368], He responded [369] stating " I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you." To this claim about my edit counts I had responded stating [370] "Congrats to you that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. you have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that You have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this."
• After this reply from me, Mehrajmir13 filed this ANI thread filled with Lies, hyperbole, exaggeration, overstatement and most important of all, "including his proposal for topic ban", which shows his clear intentions to snipe the opponent and to get his way in a content dispute. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note I have copied my comment from the thread below to here, since it was my response to the accusations thread and not just a comment on the proposal.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Still it looks misleading because you have to sign your new comments by using four tides than using a more than a week old timestamp. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note The above comment of DBigXray suggests "15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)" as the timestamp, dispite that comment was actually posted 10 days later on 21:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC). Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  Harmanprtjhj, DBigXray clearly stated right below the comment: Note I have copied my comment from the thread below to here, since it was my response to the accusations thread and not just a comment on the proposal.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC) cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• To which I have already responded. He stated way after it was pointed out, though still that post violates WP:SIGN. Where does the policy say you can use older signature when making new reply? Harmanprtjhj (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

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.

---

Taking all this into consideration and agreeing that this cumulative behavior of edit warring, harassing other editors, misrepresenting policies and sources, mass bludgeoning, battleground mentality and IDHT is undoubtedly disruptive, I am proposing a complete topic ban WP:ARBIPA, because he has been reported enough times on ANI and has only retrogressed further.   MehrajMir (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer.  MehrajMir (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Mehrajmir13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• I would note here that this user above has been editing with an extreme anti-India bias at Human rights abuses in Kashmir diff and Kunan Poshpora incident [371], on Human rights abuses in Kashmir instead of joining the talk page discussions or WP:DR for content disputes, he has tried tag teaming with an IP (who is clearly someones sock) at WP:AN3 [372] and when AN3 did not work out he tried to disrupt a DYK I had submitted and is now trying out ANI here.
• The IP had joined Mehrajmir13 and filed an AN3 case against me with false claims about EdJohnston, within a short period of time without any invitation Mehrajmir13 reached AN3 to argue (diff) against me and to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) It did not work out as expected [373] after which they tried other ways [374] to get sanctions on me.
• Regarding the massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA act [375], I had raised my objections on the talk page [376] since I had felt that it was both COPYVIO and undue. It was later clarified that it may not be considered COPYVIO which I accepted. On the talk page I had stated that [377] this copying of entire AFSPA act is still undue and an article on Human rights should discuss the implications of the AFSAP Act and not just copy paste the entire act in the Human rights article instead of giving a link to the act itself [378]. After staying away for a week, and instead of joining the discussion Mehrajmir13 again restored the disputed content [379] into the article.
• Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support (diff) an Edit warring report on an article with 1RR restriction, but at the same time he is outraged for getting [380] the standard Edit-warring template for his continued edit-warring (diff, diff, diff) on the same article.
• After having a content dispute and trying an AN3 complaint against me, Mehrajmir13 hounded me (diff) to a recent DYK, that I had submitted. The DYK had already been approved by a reviewer [381] and yet Mehrajmir13 tried stalling an already approved DYK, on entirely frivolous grounds and asking for rename or merge. Mehrajmir13 was also warned [382] by another editor WBG on Mehrajmir13's frivolous thread (diff) on the article's talk page.
• The discussion at Talk:Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir among several editors that included User:Hamster Sandwich, User:DiplomatTesterMan, User:Kautilya3, MarkZusab showed that the consensus was against any renaming or merging of the article since the current article was a consensus title, that had been decided after long discussion on the talk page as well as WP:TEAHOUSE [383][384][385] [386] [387].
• On the DYK page, When I noted that he has hounded me [388], He responded [389] stating " I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you." To this claim about my edit counts I had responded stating [390] "Congrats to you that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. you have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that You have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this."
• After this reply from me, Mehrajmir13 filed this ANI thread filled with Lies, hyperbole, exaggeration, overstatement and most important of all, "including his proposal for topic ban", which shows his clear intentions to snipe the opponent and to get his way in a content dispute. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is requesting a sanction because the editor dared to actually discuss an editorial issue, which is what you're supposed to do, and which long before this request was opened was already posted at the appropriate noticeboards. It's another in an unsettling recent string of seemingly independent proposals to sanction DBigXray specifically which have all amounted to nothing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Consider justifying his nationalist POV pushing, bludgeoning, harassment edit warring, misrepresentation of sources and probably tons of other issues raised here in a proper manner. I don't see any of that except canvassing and further bludgeoning by the disruptive editor in question who is thoroughly unfit to edit this subject given his inability to even represent the sources or policies.  MehrajMir (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Ivanvector: The most egregious line in the frivolous filing, that also gives you an insight into the level of deception and coordinated offline planning, by this group is the line when they say (diff) "I am proposing a complete topic ban WP:ARBIPA, because he has been reported enough times on ANI and has only retrogressed further.". So quite clearly, the plan here was to keep on filing an ANI report every week, and now the time has come when, they can claim "Enough number of (frivolous) reports have been filed against DBigXray, lets block/ban him." This is exactly what has been happening in the past couple of months. Perfect example of "weaponizing ANI for sniping an opponent". --DBigXrayᗙ 10:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Here is a threat I received from Qualitist on 23 January (diff) along the same lines that said, "you (DBigXray) will get the time for it one day since it is very usual to see 'some' editor dragging you to ANI because of your CIR". This threat gives interesting insights about how this harassment campaign against me is being carried out.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment one thing is correct clear here, there is WP:NATIONALIST POV bickering going on. If the editors are having trouble collaborating and reaching consensus maybe they would be happier editing entirely different topics. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment as an interested and somewhat involved party. When I see terms like "bludgeoning" "thoroughly unfit to edit" "deliberately misrepresents sources" etc. with no proof of those particular things, I tend to believe the complaint is less about merit, and more about leveling a measure of opprobrium. Not to dismiss their complaint entirely... User:DBigXray used some "tangy" language with the complainant, but saying you're not interested in a "Dick measuring contest" is different from saying "I have a bigger dick than you" or even "You are a dick." Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have provided evidence for misrepresentation of sources on Human rights abuses in Kashmir and Zabiuddin Ansari. You can check the diffs in my original complaint.  MehrajMir (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Without this becoming too much of a "timesink" on my resources, I followed up on the claims concerning your issue with the Zabiuddin Ansari article. Am I correct in assuming you take issue with this individual being identified as an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist? He has been identified as belonging to a named group of organized terrorists; whom the cited source describes as being philosophically inclined to violence based on their agenda of violence for payment couched in their religious affiliations. This is more widely known as "terrorism" for those people afflicted by sectarian violence. It certainly is IMO. Now, I have seen enough of this, and been involved enough in this to have made a determination to have no more of it. If we need to agree to disagree, so be it. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Before we fork another content discussion onto ANI, note that this exact issue is already being discussed at WP:BLPN. DBigXray did make a lengthy series of arguments there but all were on-topic and addressing the issue at hand. There's a lot to unpack, but it's a complicated issue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - The crux of the dispute seems to be whether to include text from the AFSPA (an Act giving special powers to armed forces in dealing with the insurgency) in this article on human rights. The straight answer is no. The Act is not an abuse, but it is possible that it has led to abuse. If so, the abuse should be documented, sourced to reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, not the act itself. I admit that this tricky territory, and advise the editors to take it to WP:DRN. The filer exhibits WP:IDHT tendencies and is difficult to deal with. I recommend closing with no action. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, not faulting the commenter, but if this is about a content dispute and not (as stated) a behavioural issue with one editor, the form response ought to be "take it to WP:DRN". ANI is not for content disputes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• But DBigXray was removing content by mislabeling it as "blatant WP:NFCC violation(s)"[391] and now removes it by claiming that there is no consensus when he is the only one to remove it. "reliable WP:SECONDARY sources" have been already provided to DBigXray which discuss the act as relevant in the context of human rights abuses.[392] DBigXray is absolutely engaging in nationalist POV editing. I also don't see any consensus for this edit as claimed by DBigXray. This is not the only one article where he is being a problem. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Harmanprtjhj, there are many reasons why we discourage excessive quotations in articles. See WP:QUOTEFARM. People explain it in many ways, ranging from "it is unencyclopaedic", "affects readability", "excessive quotations", "COPYVIO" etc. etc. Not everybody has a good understanding of the applicable policy, but their instincts are right. In this particular case, I agree with you that NFCC is the wrong thing to cite, because a Government Act is essentially public property, free for everybody to quote and use. But that does not make it appropriate for use in this article. If Mehrajmir13 couldn't agree with DBigXray, there are any number of places he could have gone for getting a third opinion, where people would have told him exactly what I am saying. But he seems to have convinced himself that DBigXray was acting in bad faith. That is not conducive to collaborative atmosphere we would like to see. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Content is long-standing, no one has problem with it other than DBigXray by deceptively claiming the content to be a violation of NFCC and then misrepresenting sources. How can anyone expect such an incompetent editor to deal with a sensitive subject? We already had "third opinion" on talk page. Fact that you are not aware of it simply sbows that you are not even checking the diffs.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• As shown in this edit from 2014 it was User:Mehrajmir13 who added this disputed content.
• User:Mehrajmir13 is again clearly lying here when he says "Content is long-standing, no one has problem with it other than DBigXray" because one can see in this diff [393] and [394] that Admin RegentsPark had removed most of the content added by User:Mehrajmir13 there.
• His content was further challenged [395] by me on the talk page and instead of discussing the validity and veracity of the said content on the talk page, he is is continuously trying to get the objecting editor blocked/banned first in a totally frivolous AN3 report (diff) and now here at ANI.
• If User:Mehrajmir13 is unable to tolerate or discuss objections to his controversial edits then he should rather stay away from controversial articles, instead of kicking up a shit storm with lies and Drama at admin boards.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hamster Sandwich, I don't see evidence of behavior that needs to be sanctioned here. All the edits are reasonably explained and the accused is open to discussion. Work it out. --В²C ☎ 00:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Born2cycle: For starters, where is the resonable explanation for these false claims of copyright violation?[396] In which world one can believe that someone with that level of incompetence would be capable to work it out?  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support You can't expect constructive discussion from DBigXray as he always engages in harassment and battleground mentality. For example, he fails to agree that he is using a primary source when the source is written by an involved police officer. I started a thread on WP:RSN where DBigXray started his response by making personal attacks on me,[397] and continued to claim the source is non-primary and completely reliable even after more than 7 editors told him otherwise.[398] He has been wikihounding my contributions by appearing on pages that he never edited earlier,[399] and reporting admins over trivial issues.[400] He has violated copyrights on articles related to Punjab insurgency and his violation of WP:TERRORIST can be also seen on Khalistan Commando Force, where he made 6 reverts to claim the militant group as "terrorist" and their supporters a "radical" (without providing any sources).[401][402] Not surprised that this disruption has now moved into Muslim-related articles. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am sorry, I have seen unbridled hostility emanate from your from the beginning: 20:29, 7 January 2019 ("it needs no rebuttal but large chunk of removal to restore sanity of the article"), 20:54, 7 January 2019 (" Have you carefully checked the article on Osama Bin Laden? Even that is more grammatical and neutral than this article written by you"), 21:37, 7 January 2019 ("you are going to do yourself a favor only if you fix the article. Anyone who knows A and B of this subject would know that article is in a very bad shape.") etc., where the last of these sounds more like a threat, not even hostility. Many people watch the pages that you are dealing with. If you discuss things in a calm and polite manner, people will come forward to help sort out issues. But if you shout at the top of voice all the time, people will walk away.
• If you want to accuse him as having made 6 reverts (I don't know over what period), then you need to provide 6 diffs. The diff you have provided 09:23, 11 January 2019 shows him adding sources. Since the sources exist and he wasn't simply making it up, it was verifiable. So I don't see what the problem is that you are alluding to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Quotations of posts added for immediate evidence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Diffs cited by you don't show any hostility. You are just being too sensitive over DBigXray who was totally engaging in IDHT and battleground mentality against this user.
• Anyone who has edited Wikipedia for a little time can count those 6 reverts, they don't "need to provide 6 diffs", especially when those edits are that recent.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• These are again similar lies and deception that Harmanprtjhj had tried to use in his last "Snipe the opponent at ANI" thread against me, to get a way out of his content disputes. They over exaggerate content disputes with hyperbolic language and add lies and deception hoping that gullible folks will fall for their old tricks. To give an example, Harmanprtjhj's talk page is on my watchlist since 5 January and Ad Orientem had blocked and warned[403] Harmanprtjhj on his talk page, regarding what Ad Orientem then believed as "disruptive edit" on Yusuf Soalih Ajura, after which I made this edit on [404] and also noted this on the same thread [405]. But one can see that these facts never stopped Harmanprtjhj from cooking up a false and deceptive narrative, because "why let facts spoil a good story". --DBigXrayᗙ 03:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• My reading shows that it was a mistaken block as acknowledged by Ad Orientem. If anyone is engaging in "lies and deception", that is only you. Not to mention that none of this justifies your harassment of other editor.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Another example of WP:CHERRYPICKING by Mehrajmir13 for misrepresentation. In my above line, did you miss reading the phrase "regarding what Ad Orientem, "then believed" as "disruptive edit", I have bolded it so that it is easier for you to read.--DBigXrayᗙ 04:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• You are misrepresenting entire thing and distracting. Ad Orientem never "warned" me and made a block in error only after after reading an automated report.[406] Having a user's talk page in your watchlist doesn't means you can wikihound their edits. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Perhaps it is time to consider a topic ban or some other solution for the OP. Dlohcierekim talk 15:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Comment no opinion on the topic ban, but it appears both Mehrajmir13 and DBigXRay are replying to any posts opposing their side with content seemingly intended to discourage !voting from that side. It's not quite as bad with both sides doing it as only one side (for that encourages nonrepresentative conclusions), but it may be adversely affecting participation, and thus, a balanced result. Surely any reasonably experienced editor would have formed a definitive opinion before commenting, and a reply from the editor whom they have opposed accusing them of "lies and deception" or the like isn't going to sway their vote; if anything, it will cement them further into their current position. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support on-going pattern of disruptive editing is evidenced by many other recent examples, which includes his 10 reverts on Rafale deal controversy by engaging in POV pushing and creating Rafale deal controversy/Sandbox by abusing autopatrolled user-right to evade full protection. History of this sub-article shows DBigXray made a few botched page moves to retain this misuse of article space. Making 5 reverts on 1984 anti-Sikh riots by misrepresenting sources and superficially using BLPCRIME as exemption[407][[408] to edit war when no BLP was concerned (December 2018). 4 reverts on Jaggi Vasudev for violating BLP (November 2018). 6 reverts on Khalistan Commando Force (January 2019) and all these pages resulted in full protection because of DBigXray's lame edit war. What is even more interesting that his edits received no support from any other editor in spite of his bludgeoning on each of the concerning talk pages[409][410][411][412]. His disruption on talk pages has been beyond disruptive because he attack opponents[413][414], modify others comments[415], remove others comments[416] and engages in typical IDHT.[417][418] I note that how all of these articles attracted no controversy before DBigXray started disrupting them. It is clear that he can't edit without righting great wrong or harassing other editors. Note his creation of Pakistan administered Kashmir against consensus (December 2018) and his DRV against deletion of this CFORK with no one supporting your demand to overturn the result. Further disruption was also seen on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears where he was alone arguing for deletion because the article concerned a documentary on human rights abuses by Indian military, the same issue over which he is now edit warring on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. It took him less than 2.5 months to produce all these examples. A topic ban is a no-brainer. Qualitist (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. DBigXRay could afford to make fewer reverts when he edits contentious topics, but his edits generally tend to be based in policy. The extent of mudslinging here suggests a couple of a boomerangs are in order. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely sanctionable behavior given the final warning on one of the previous ANI and aspersions and bludgeoning in this thread. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: Which diff do you think is the violation of the warning the reported user was given here? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Wikihounding,[419] exclusively attacking contributors[420]][421], and accusing them of sock puppetry[422] does show violation of that warning. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This seems to be an evergreen ANI thread. The user in question has a target on their back and has had some questionable editing habits in the past. But I don't see anything here which isn't a content dispute at this point which could be resolved through discussion or RfCs. SportingFlyer T·C 02:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A overblown content dispute which the OP has with misplaced zeal brought to an inappropriate forum. There doesn't seem to be anything remotely actionable. In fact, looking at the content under dispute, I am inclined to support the removal of the excessively long quotations. The other changes made also seem reasonable. No harassment of the OP is visible. The elephant in the room are the supporters of the topic ban who seem to be hell bent on getting a net positive editor topic-banned from Wikipedia and have resorted to digging up unrelated mud from a month or two back in the hope of getting some of it to stick to the wall. It is this sort of behavior that I (as a spectator who has seen all these incidents play out in front of me) find utterly disgusting. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 13:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Dlohcierekim says, it may be time for a boomerang against the OP, whose wall of text doesn't make a case. It is true that DBigXray sometimes becomes stubborn; so do a lot of editors. Maybe they should be warned, but the OP should be warned first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: OP has reported evidence that DBigXray is falsely attributing content as a NFCC violation, misrepresenting sources on multiple articles, making baseless accusations of socking, bludgeoning and edit warring. This is a established pattern of DBigXray's editing. Even in this same thread, DBigXray is accusing OP of evading scrutiny as an IP. I don't see why a user should not be sanctioned for it. What are we waiting for? Qualitist (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: per Ivanvector. Simply discussing an issue on a talk page instead of warring it out in the mainspace isn't grounds for a topic ban. God forbid someone wants to actually discuss something first. Has DBigXray been stubborn? Sure. Does that warrant a topic ban? Absolutely not. SITH (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as minimum per the evident repeat problems shown. That said, although no personal attacks here, canvassing and clear attempts to bludgeon the thread shows there are broader issues and we will be back here again. I really do think some type of sanction is necessary for this to be solved as complaints about BigDRay's behavior is fairly frequent and the OP has indeed shown some misrepresentation of sources and baseless accusations that don't seem like they are ever going to stop without at least some action. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• In addition the warning शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil pointed out [423] with the conclusion being "admin should block if behavior continues" warrants at least some action to correct this if we are ever gonna have an end to these notices. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• And it should also be noted how these users are 'frequently' seen baying for blood and trying too hard at every thread filed here at ANI. e.g. diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff --DBigXrayᗙ 19:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is another example of WP:BLUDGEONING. I have no personal qualms with DBigXRay. I've supported action against him on exactly two other threads simply because i thought the action was warranted in those cases, and the first case i thought was definitely an injustice because he basically baited a noob and got him banned. All he did was post my edits to the same posts I made and then posted the edit i made on this thread to make it seem like i have an extensive feud with him when i dont. If he wasn't always appearing on ANI i wouldnt be posting those comments I'd be posting on other posts in ANI. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I was inclined to comment after seeing the final warning issued by User:cyberpower678, which शिव साहिल brought to our eyes. Falsely accusing others of Sockpuppetry, after getting warnings against making harassment, calls for action. I'm interpreting "Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support" as accusing Mehrajmir13 to have a IP sock (am I right?). The case was filed by an IP, in fact not Mehrajmir13. I may be wrong, but in this diff, also coming after the last warning, he's harassing another user by comparing him with a banned editor. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The admins who are familiar with the WP:ARBIPA topic area, (some of whom have also commented in this thread), know very well about the massive sock and meat puppetry going on in the India Pakistan topic area. So much that there is an ongoing proposal for Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict at WP:AN. You see, Mehrajmir13 has still not clarified this and I am still very interested to know how Mehrajmir13 reached WP:AN3 (diff) within minutes of the IP filing a frivolous AN3 case involving me. And Mehrajmir13 then attempts damage control by trying to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) --DBigXrayᗙ 18:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the India-Pakistan articles are hot topics, but, hmm...I think you're again harassing the user by making these comments. Though, I would not blame you if you had opened a SPI report accompanied by clues. Did you get the point? Needless to mention that you did the same for Dilpa kaur. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment If DBigXray genuinely apologizes and condemns his actions, he should be forgiven. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't totally disagree with this, if he does correct his behavior its of course fine. The problem is, given his extensive edit history and frequent appearances on ANI [424], [425], [426] I don't see how his behavior is ever gonna change without some kind of action. This doesn't mean we need to permaban him of course, but unless there's some type of action I expect this behavior will persist. At the very least, admins can give another final warning or something and see if this actually helps correct his behavior. I doubt it will unless we implement even a small temporary sanction, which is why i think some kind of action is necessary. But who knows. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikiman5676: See this comment repeating socking accusations coming after the apology request! --Mhhossein ^talk 05:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. I do not believe he will alter his behavior unless action is taken. What i describe above was a proposed bare minimum action. Basically give him one last chance to correct his behavior before sanctions. I think this is taking a very lenient approach but I just wanted to put the idea in the air. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. When the proposer of a sanction is an involved party, it is inappropriate for them to propose sanctions, unless they have extremely clean hands. I don't see that here. --Blackmane (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector, В²C, Dlohcierekim, Vanamonde, SportingFlyer, FR, Robert McClenon, SITH, Blackmane, and the fact that DBigXray has been polite, considerate, factual, and kept to the point in all of our several encounters, whether direct or indirect. For the record, a gift of Lassi for being a no-fuss admin did not sway me, only an Orange Julius could do that! (For the humor-deficient, that's a joke.) – Athaenara ✉ 06:00, 14 February 2019 (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.

Hmains

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

I am concerned about some contributions from Hmains (talk · contribs) that seem to be placing speed of operation over accuracy and quality. My attention was drawn to this on his talk page at User talk:Hmains#For the last time, where EEng and Headbomb complained about Hmains' AWB editing, suggesting that his privileges be revoked. The principal complaint is "The problem is that many of Hmain's edits either have nothing to do with MOS (e.g. changing {{Quote}} to {{quote}} or inserting or deleting whitespace in the source text) or actively introduce violations of MOS (inserting hyphen-hyphen as a dash). Plus, even where Hmains seems to be trying to do something that's appropriate and useful, he doesn't know how to formulate regular expressions to make the changes correctly in edge cases, so that he introduces new errors.". Hmains' original response was "There is nothing wrong with my edits" which raises an immediate red flag. At the time, I declined to revoke Hmains' AWB priviliges, believing he deserved a last chance now he knew what the problems were. Now, I have discovered BrownHairedGirl, who has previously blocked Hmains for disruptive editing, has complained about him at User talk:Hmains#Category:Agriculture in the Republic of Ireland, linking to categories that do not exist, and a further suggestion that we should take sanctions.

As I don't really know much about Hmains' editing patterns too well, I thought the best thing to do would be to come here and let the interested parties make their case and see what sort of sanctions, if any, we should make. I appreciate I haven't come here armed with much in the way of diffs - I just want to start a discussion here instead of taking admin action unilaterally, and I'm hoping the people making the original complaints will be able to supply them in due course. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to @Ritchie333 for opening this discussion.

I'll try write a longer post later today, but for now I just want to note that Hmains is a prolific editor whose good intent to me to be seems beyond question. He's always civil, and I have seen no sign of any intentional disruption.

The problem I see is long-term patterns of Hmains introducing plentiful errors which other have to clean up, and Hmains showing little sign of learning from these issues. It's the lack of learning which concerns me. Every editor has a non-zero error rate, but most editors learn how to avoid particular types of errors, or at least to check their own work and clean up after themselves. That doesn't seem to happen with Hmains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Given both the number of bots and editors which do nothing but change the sort of thing discussed here, it seems that there isn’t actually a problem for the reader. If some wikiteur is incensed because someone made a long dash by putting two short dashes together, even though the content associated is good, it may not be the writer who is the problem. Qwirkle (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• I can't speak to active errors at all, not having reviewed Hmains' edit history to see what's going on — but what I do want to point out is that AWB automatically applies its own "general fixes" (inserting missing whitespace where it's needed, deleting extraneous whitespace where it isn't, converting template links from redirect-title to direct-title, etc.) independently of the job that the user actually coded for. For instance, if I use AWB to do a tagging run on articles in a maintenance queue, AWB will also apply all of those same fixes at the same time as it's making the changes I actually planned for. Not because I coded for that, but because AWB is preprogrammed to automatically apply those changes separately from what I coded for. So it's not fair to criticize Hmains for that, because AWB simply does that automatically as a side dish to the job the user is actually trying to do.
  If Hmains is making active errors that are breaking stuff, then that's a different matter — but please keep the discussion on focus, because criticizing Hmains for AWB's automatic genfixes isn't productive or helpful. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  If Hmains is making active errors that are breaking stuff – Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. Those in a hurry might start at [427] and read forward as necessary, and backwards according to taste. I want to echo BHG's sentiment that there's no question Hmains is sincerely trying to help. EEng 15:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be more impressed by seeing examples of him breaking stuff, not being told he is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I've read through the relevant threads on Hmains' talk page and also the diffs contained therein, and I agree there appears to be some kind of competency issue, I think some diffs would help here. Hmains seem like a very nice person, which is probably why they still somehow have managed to retain their AWB privileges (and please note if this changes that both Hmains and Hmainsbot are on the checklist). All that being said, doing this gnoming work is a thankless task, Hmains' intentions are 100% good, and we need to be kind, please. Fish+Karate 16:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to be honest and say that I don't personally understand what the issue is with Hmains, probably because I don't go anywhere the MOS or AWB so these edits never turn up on my watchlist (or if they do, they don't trigger sufficient interest for me to notice). However, while EEng can be .... an "acquired taste" to some, I find it very uncharacteristic that he would ask me to drop Hmains' AWB rights for no reason whatsoever - so there must be something going on here that I don't get. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant to mention that I'm offering free tastings all this week and next. EEng 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder to folks - spit, don't swallow. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that they're applying custom fixes, which work 90% of the time, but don't review their edits and they break stuff 10% of the time. An example is changing ... to _..._ (where _ is a space). That may be fine in prose in most situations, but it will break things like Bibcode:2018A&A...616A...1G. There are other example, but the point is repeated WP:AWBRULES violations and they edit in a broken-WP:MEATBOT-like fashion. Revoke AWB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Even after requests, I see no DIFFS being offered, just opinionns. 2600:100F:B125:1224:D075:21D1:EB81:E6AD (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Or you know, you could just have followed up on many of the several links that were offered here. Like User talk:Hmains#For the last time. Or User talk:Hmains#Bibcodes, again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Question: Would a removal of AWB (and a ban from it) resolve the issue, or are there further/deeper competency issues? If a removal of, and ban from, AWB would resolve the matter, then I Support that. I've seen all too many things get messed up at best, and broken at worst, by AWB use, especially at speed. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  See my !vote below. EEng 07:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I understand the concerns with some of my edits. It was never my intent to be anything other than helpful to WP. Thanks Hmains (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Please believe that we really do understand that. EEng 04:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Revoke AWB rights

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.

---

From what I have seen on this thread and on Hmains' talkpage, this is well and truly needed, and overdue. Pinging EEng, Headbomb, BrownHairedGirl, Ritchie333. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite revocation of AWB rights. Hmains can go back to regular, careful editing, of things he understands. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per User_talk:Hmains#Request_that_AWB_access_be_revoked seems like a good idea for a while. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support plus... the problem's broader than just AWB use. Per BHG's suggestion at User_talk:Hmains, in addition to no AWB we really need something along the lines of a topic ban from systematic/repetitious stylistic and formattimg edits. EEng 07:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support we can revisit the situation in a few months. Don't see the need to remove access to other tools however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, 6-month AWB ban This user is here in good heart but misused AWB, so I think a brief break from it is good enough. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 10:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: the discussion on Hmains' talkpage—linked to by EEng—raises sufficient concerns which, combined with the disruption (low level, but still) evidenced here, indicates that this particular use of AWB is...over excited, perhaps. A break is called for. It's merely a break; nothing punitive, and no-one is being sat on—it's just a (six month) pause for breath in which Hmains recalibrates their approach. ——SerialNumber54129 10:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• support as per EEng's outline and clear approach to this situation, well supported by similar comments. I doubt the user is benefiting from this method of contribution either, although it is not my business to speculate on compulsion to act and aversion to scrutiny (which describes virtually everyone, in some way), and they may also reflect on this as a good outcome. cygnis insignis 13:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, plus a ban on systematic/repetitious stylistic and formatting edits as I suggested at User_talk:Hmains, and as noted above by EEng. The problem is that Hmains doesn't take sufficient care over what they do, and while this is exacerbated by tools such as AWB, it is not limited to AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • PS Note that back in January, in a discussion at User_talk:Hmains, I opposed @EEng & @EEng's proposed revocation of AWB rights and proposed instead a 6-month suspension.[428] Since then, I have changed my mind on that.

In hindsight, I think I was reacting to Hmains's undoubted niceness and goodwill, and trying to be gentle. However, having reviewed the long history I don't think there is any reason to assume that the problems of working outside their skill zone will be resolved in 6 months. So it seems to me that a 6-month suspension is unhelpful to everyone, because promising Hmains reinstatement without any test of whether the competence issues have been resolved just invites a re-run of this discussion shortly after the 6 month ban expires. So now I think it's better for everyone to make the revocation indefinite, and leave Hmains free to reapply at any time if and when they can demonstrate that they have gained a better understanding of the problems which have arisen, and demonstrate that they now have ability to avoid them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support temporary revocation - Hmain has contributed very well to Wikipedia for a very long time, but his AWB use is very concerning. Plus, the lack of response to the ANI threat and the user's talk page (as of 2/14/19) sends a red-flag to me. However, I think the user can learn from his/her mistakes. I think a temporary revocation is necessary, perhaps around three to six months. A permanent revocation is a bit too much for a punishment. INeedSupport ^:3 15:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  threat ==> thread? Not permanent, but indefinite in the way a block can be indefinite. He can ask for it back when he can explain why things will go better than they have. In the meantime there're plenty of other ways to contribute. EEng 16:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support revoking AWB rights indefinitely. This user has consistently failed to comply with both WP:AWBRULES and WP:COSMETICBOT, despite multiple warnings [429][430][431]. What is perhaps even more concerning is that they refuse to take proper care in checking every edit before they save, often leading to broken categories and MOS violations, with these edits going back as far as May 2017 [432][433][434][435]. While I don't doubt that these changes are made in good faith, until Hmains can learn to be more careful in using semi-automated tools, a removal of rights is in order. Omni Flames (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2019 (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:MarkDice Off site canvasing

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.

---

MarkDice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I make a habit of occasionally reading article listed in Wikipedia:Press coverage as I find it useful to keep an eye on what others think of Wikipedia as my experiance is that it can affect both content and policy pages and also create storms in a teacup.

At the time of reading (an writing this) the most recent article listed is:

• Ernst, Douglas (February 14, 2019). "Mark Dice battles Wikipedia: Conservative YouTube pundit blocked from debate on his biography". The Washington Times. Retrieved February 15, 2019. Wikipedia blocked him this week over a years-long debate on what his biography page should contain.

As I have never heard of the person (I'm a Brit) I had a look at the talk page of the article Mark Dice and saw that the first, entry on the talk page is a section titled "YouTube subscriber count" started by User:Jimbo Wales on 30 January 2019.

The first reply is by a new user user:MarkDice who claims to be the subject of the biography. No one has questioned this so I assume that the account is being used by the subject of the artilce. I started to read the very long page (currently 206,461 bytes long and all written since 30-01-2019). I may add a comment to that talk page, but as yet I am totally uninvolved. I noticed that the last comment made by user:MarkDice was 7 Feb 2019 (diff) and that user:MarkDice has only edited that talk page (contributions).

On User talk:MarkDice the most recent section states:

== Off wiki canvasing ==

Is unacceptable and really against out best practice, this [[[436] has lost you any sympathy I may have had for all, all it has done is caused a raft of childish vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It is also why I've blocked this account and block anyone who shows up because of the video. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Curious what Jimmy Wales has to say about this development after getting involved in the BLP talk page in the first place...? - wolf 08:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate that Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Notifying the blocked user can be read to mean that "It is also why I've blocked this account and block anyone who shows up because of the video" (posted within the same minute as the block with no follow up on the blocked user's talk page) fulfils the policy I personally would never be as terse. Where is the usual Template:Uw-block or similar with an explanation of how to appeal the block?

I was going to post a message to User talk:Ian.thomson to disuss the block (per WP:RAAA) and saw the section User talk:Ian.thomson#Mark Dice. There were comments in that section that that made me decide that such a converstaion would be fruitless:

Extended content

== Mark Dice == Background: I have sided with Dice exactly 0 times in that discussion and I am explicitly mocked at the 2:20 mark in that video. Not that I get a say in such things but I think blocking someone because they post off-site criticism of Wikipedia is not great. While it was meat puppetry I think this is a case where discretion would have been the better part of valor. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC) @Barkeep49: If it was just criticism, I wouldn't have blocked. He knows he has a following and he's using it in bad faith to get what he wants without regard to our policies. I recommend reporting the video (and his comment linking to the talk page) for harassment. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Well in my case it might have started, should be fun times.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC) @Slatersteven: If I'm on and I see further incidents (on your page and a few other), I'll semi-protect. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC) No need, it does not overly worry me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Ok then. It looks like it's just a few folks going to random pages because they don't know what they're doing (...I mean, if they did, they'd be taking a different approach). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC) You are obviously biased or at least WP:INVOLVED on the topic of Mark Dice's biography and his off-wiki canvassing. However, that does not allow you to indiscriminately indef new accounts. Please notify WP:AN or something because these blocks are not uncontroversial. wumbolo ^^^ 16:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Most of those accountants (being very generous) have just posted rants about how unfair Wikipedia is, and snide comments.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC) And all of them were unaware of WP:TALK. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Were they, all the blocked accounts, even the ones who have been here for years? Even after I posted this [[437]], which tells any one who read it the talk page is for discussing the article, not a soapbox?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC) If Dice was a far-left conspiracy theorist, would you be complaining about me blocking accounts who posted stuff that had to be revdelled? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Also, completely ignoring politics, we're dealing with fans of a professional troll. Calling his fans here on Twitter was a cry for attention. Calling Jimbo on Twitter was a cry for attention. Coming on here was just gathering material for yet another cry for attention. Calling his fans here on Youtube was just a cry for attention. The best that can be done is to avoid giving them another platform and showing them that rallying the base is useless. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) None of you asked but the recent batch of accounts are  Unrelated to User:MarkDice and  Unlikely to each other. But, as someone who had to look up just who Mark Dice is (and also an accountant fwiw) I endorse these blocks per WP:MEAT and per Arbcom direction on what to do with obvious meatpuppets (which, in my opinion, includes long-idle accounts waking up in response to a blatant canvass). Please copy this comment if anyone feels the need to escalate the issue to one of the admin noticeboards. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Yeah, I figured they were unrelated, which is why I didn't bother filing an SPI, tagging, and opening a category page of suspected sockpuppets. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC) The whole "reactivating old accounts" thing is a big red flag for me, and I'm not saying I saw nothing, but nothing that suggests any more useful action at this time. I will likely check again later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand user:Ian.thomson's concerns when (s)he writes "Also, completely ignoring politics, we're dealing with fans of a professional troll.", but if this was part of the reason for imposing the indefinate block then the inference is that perhapse user:Ian.thomson would have acted differently if the video had been posted by a none "professional troll", that was seen by few people.

I pondered on this and re-read WP:WHEEL and decided to reverse the block because we usually do not bite newbees and there is no reason why this new editor should have been aware that such a prohibition existed, when he made and published the YT video. Assuming good faith as an alternative a warning could have been given not to do it again, as blocks are not supposed to be impose as a punisment.

I have ended the indefinate block because while I think that the publication of the video is a clear case of off site canvasing, it should be discussed here and a consensus formed over what to do at WP:ANI. My ending of the indefinate block should not be read as my approving of the actions of MarkDice/Mark Dice, and I will take no further part in discussion of the initial block or other possible actions that may be discussed here. I will however reserve the right of reply if anyone questions my actions in ending the block, or makes a personal attack.

I hope that a clear consensus will emerge from this discussion and perhapse the place to start would be if other editors can add links to similar discussions in the ANI archives about off site canvasing so that we can be informed about those previous discussions and decisions about what to do in such situations.

-- PBS (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Bad unblock. PBS, did you see this AN thread where there was an unanimous consensus approving the blocks in totality ? ∯WBG^converse 12:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah you really should have looked for the current discussions for this. This isn't good and will add fuel to the fire. spryde | talk 12:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Agree this was a bad unblock, even if intentions were good faith. There's a long history here and a recent AN thread. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock in the absence of any appeal from the user, as that at least would indicate to the slightest degree whether they intended to adapt to community expectations. ——SerialNumber54129 13:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Bad unblock. Against consensus. Huge serving of trout for PBS. Either you've made a serious accusation without due diligence (there's no excuse for unlocking without talking to the blocking admin, no excuse for not being aware of the existing consensus supporting it), or you are in fact Wheelwarring. Someone needs to reblock, and now. Good faith or bad, this is just a crap action. John from Idegon (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, the re-blocking would be wheel-warring I think, but I totally agree that PBS shold be reminded that unilaterally overturning a community consensus has surely got to be mainline to arbcom... ——SerialNumber54129 13:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• That's a terrible cowboy unblock, against community consensus (there's already been an AN thread about this) and without contacting the blocking admin, which should result in a swift trip to ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• My ending of the indefinate [sic] block should not be read as my approving of the actions of MarkDice/Mark Dice, and I will take no further part in discussion of the initial block or other possible actions that may be discussed here. So you reversed an admin action without consulting the admin involved, didn't research the background, created a mess, and now you're simply going to walk away? And by the way, yeah, unblocking Mark Dice is a de facto approval for his canvassing. --Calton | Talk 13:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• I'm disappointed PBS felt the need to reread WP:WHEEL on the assumption that they'd be reversed - and especially to say so above as a chilling effect - but not WP:Blocking policy#Unblocking, the policy that would cover their own action. —Cryptic 13:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Cryptic, that's the point I too failed to understand. He should have been reading the latter instead of the former:-)∯WBG^converse 13:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Ambivalent I supported (and indeed more or less asked) for the block, but an idef may have been to far. Every user (even Mr Dice) deserves a chance to show they can learn from their mistakes.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Reblocking

Since having a single admin reversing this action would count as wheel-warring, I propose that the block be reimposed by immediate consent. If PBS wants it reversed, he can argue for it first. --Calton | Talk 13:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would suggest PBS reverse it or consensus here is obtained within 24 hours (or whatever the customary time period is these days). Don't let any technicalities get in the way of this one. spryde | talk 13:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• No need for a separate sub-section. If there's a consensus that it was a bad unblock;any un-involved admin can re-impose it. ∯WBG^converse 13:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

There already exists a community consensus to block at AN. Although this hasn't ran 24 hours, there is consensus here that PBS's actions were improper. IMO, the only way this doesn't end up with a desysop action at Arbcom is for PBS to reverse himself sooner rather than later. John from Idegon (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the unblock, support a reblock, but let's calm down a bit here. I wish everyone on all sides would take on board the suggestion that MarkDice be treated like any other editor (that goes for Jimbo, PBS, and everyone else). The community has faced these sorts of issues before and there are existing practices and procedures and policies that should be followed. It's not proper for an admin to reverse another admin's action without discussion first; nor to take action directly against community consensus (e.g., the AN thread on this subject). If the consensus to block is reaffirmed here, it seems proper for an uninvolved admin to re-block. But that doesn't mean we should adopt a "block on sight" policy for suspected canvassed accounts, and talk of ArbCom seems over the top to me. I could do that thing and provide a shitload of diffs of admins undoing other admins' blocks without discussion, against consensus, and nobody taking them to ArbCom over it, or ArbCom denying a case request. Y'all know there've been some recent well-known examples of this. I say reaffirm consensus, reblock the account, and follow our usual procedures. This is a trout not a de-bit situation. Us getting hysterical about Mark Dice is what Mark Dice wants. Leviv ich 14:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• No-one's getting hysterical about Dice; the situation regarding him was completely under control before PBS decided he knew better than everyone else. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

^+1 ——SerialNumber54129 15:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

If you ask me, Talk:Mark Dice contains a bunch of hysteria about Dice, from top to bottom. Leviv ich 15:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussions on user pages are ususally reactive to the user themselves, and MD's page is neither exception nor exaggeration. The discussions BK was referring to that haven't' involved MD, however—here and at AN—have been qoutecompletely under controlunquote. The environment of a discussion moulds the discussion, you see. ——SerialNumber54129 15:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, it would have been better if any of the following happened: 1) Jimbo hadn't brought attention to it in the first place; 2) editors ignored Jimbo instead of rushing to the article; 3) other editors ignored the whole thing instead of rushing to police the article; 4) Dice's canvassing was ignored instead of him being blocked; 5) Dice's followers were ignored instead of being blocked; and, 6) Dice wasn't unblocked without him making an unblock request, leaving good enough alone. Just my opinion. Leviv ich 15:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Clearly consensus is against you on that. And why, may I ask, did you reply to me when it was Black Kite who responded to your remark about "hysteria" to which you were then responding? ——SerialNumber54129 15:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

What does ^+1 mean? I intended to reply to both of you, but I must have misunderstood your comment. Please accept my apologies. Leviv ich 17:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Be careful about using words like hysteria, Levivich. It was using hysterical that caused me to be banned from Jimbo's talk page. Gendered overtones, apparently, although I thought that was ancient Greek usage. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the reblock Everyone deserves a second change, this was (whilst egregious) a one off.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Have you learned nothing from the talk page, where it has been noted that this is not in fact a one-off? He's done it in the past. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did miss that on the talk page, care to link to it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You missed something you replied to? I know you more often than not seem to get it wrong but ... Here's example. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I see no mention here of canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:CIR. I am getting very fed up of it: numerous examples of your incompetence/slapdashery at that one article talk page alone and your speciousness beggars belief. Re-read the entire talk page if you must. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

All I can see is something about his ranting about his article, that is not canvasing (any more then this is). What I need to see is clear evidence he has done this sort of thing (saying "go over" to my page and edit it) before. Because if it is a lot of users who discuss articles off Wikipedia are canvasing, is that the criteria we have?Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

There's [438] ——SerialNumber54129 17:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Mmm I would point out this is part of the same incident, just on another platform, that does not really go far to establish he has done this "before", or that he will do so again. Blocks are not punetive. I supported the block for this current round of canvasing, but all users deserve to show they have learned their lesson.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Consensus already exists that it was a bad unblock. Any passing admin can reblock based on that consensus without this subthread, and should do so and close this entire section immediately. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Reblock. It'll mean more if someone besides me blocks at this point. Dice continued to canvass after being blocked for it. He clearly doesn't care about what the article says, he's just wants another platform to rally his fans around. WP:RBI is the standard procedure for dealing with trolls. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  The editor has been reblocked. [439] Leviv ich 17:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reblock What the ever loving fuck good does anyone in their right mind expect to come from inviting that guy to edit this site? Seriously! If you want to argue this point, you need to present a coherent case that unblocking was a good idea, not a vague case that the original block was not perfect. WE ARE NOT A BUREAUCRACY. Claiming that this block was wrong due to some technicality is essentially the same as admitting this was a good block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose reblock for much the same reasons as the !vote above, though in rather more civil language. WP:MEAT gives grounds for blocking meatpuppets, not the meat-puppet master, and certainly not indefinitely. And what good, exactly, does blocking this account achieve? What does it prevent? On the contrary, it gives Mark considerably more latitude to cause trouble. On a side note, I am having real difficulty seeing how Drmies reblock is not wheel-warring; linking to one involved editor's opinion that consensus exists is rather different to consensus actually existing, especially when a section on reblocking has one !vote in favour and another !vote against. GoldenRing (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEAT gives grounds for blocking meatpuppets, not the meat-puppet master, and certainly not indefinitely. What part of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy did you find difficult to comprehend, and why did you think my comments mentioned if, as you have just implied, my reasoning had nothing to do with it?

And what good, exactly, does blocking this account achieve? What does it prevent? On the contrary, it gives Mark considerably more latitude to cause trouble. That is the single most ignorant statement I've read on this site in at least a week. Congrats, I guess. To answer the silly questions in it; it prevents Dice from disrupting the project himself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The answer to your question is Arbcom. Unless you think another consensus is going to emerge, overturning the previous one (yeah, right), then there is nothing more you or anyone can do here. If there are issues with it, then that is the next venue. And moaning about the result doesn't get the guys back on the pitch. But, you go ahead, feed the drama, I'm sure there isn't enough of it! ——SerialNumber54129 19:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note: The account was already reblocked by Drmies a couple of hours ago. —DoRD (talk)​ 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment User:MarkDice is WP:NOTHERE to develop the project, he is using Wikipedia to create controversy and gove him material to rant about. He knows full well he should not be canvassing his viewers to edit the page, but he did it to create controversy which gets him more views. It's working because I'd never heard of him but now I've watched his view. Keep him blocked and block any acct that crosses the line into trolling. Be sure the option to file an appeal of his block is available. Then ignore him to the extent possible for attention is what he seeks Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I was about to reblock the account given the opinions expressed in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mark_Dice_related_blocks, but I see that user:Drmies has breached policy and already done so. Before I took the decision to unblock, I had searched for a block discussion both here and at WP:AN, however I searched for MarkDice as that is the user name under discussion, and as no one mentioned the account name in the AN section or posted a heads up to the account's talk page that a discussion was taking place or the outcome of the discussion I failed to see that section. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• PBS, I wasn't aware that I was breaching policy--in all honesty, I thought that you were doing that, by unblocking without consulting with the previous admin. But policy or not, I thought that was a pretty unwise decision, and that you didn't fully consider what kind of shitstorm this would raise--I suppose I'm glad you saw that your unblock was challenged to this extent, and yet I wonder how you got to it in the first place (yes, I read your original post). As for "linking to one involved editor's opinion that consensus exists" remark by GoldenRing--GoldenRing, I'm sure you understand that the diff isn't so much to link to Tony's comment (though he's frequently right, and I an not aware he was "involved") but to the situation as I found it at that time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: As I am sure you are perfectly aware, according to our banning policy, a community discussion of an indef block is a ban discussion and a ban discussion must remain open for at least 24 hours (emphasis in the original). You re-blocked when the discussion had been open for five hours and five minutes. I'm not after your bit, but your action here was clearly wheel-warring. You ought to self-revert and let the discussion reach a consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If you think I was that wrong, go ahead and unblock. You have my blessing. I gotta go teach. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As I understood it (and it is the basis of my vote) that AN thread was about the blocks of other accounts (for meat puppetry), not Mr Dice for canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I also thought we were discussing meatpuppets as Dice himself was already blocked and no one was seeking to review that. The path to an unblock is usually admission of wrong in an appeal (or tweet Jimbo) Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Drmies didn't wheel war. It's not necessary to refer to the AN discussion; at the time Drmies reblocked, there was a strong consensus above that PBS's unblock was bad. There was no need to start a new section "Reblocking", still less to wait for that section to gain yet another consensus for the block — how many consensuses do we need? I agree with Tony Ballioni here, and I obviously disagree with Golden Ring. I'll quote WP:WHEEL: When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus. I've bolded the references to consensus in there. Drmies reblocked after a "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision". Bishonen | talk 20:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC).
• I've been highly critical of admin actions on the talk page. So have Jimbo and Larry Sanger [440]. However, Mark Dice has shown blatant disregard for WP:COI. If he is to return, I support a topic ban from the article about him. Unlike new editors who've been indeffed for not knowing the ropes, Dice knows exactly what he's doing and is being completely transparent. This unblock is out of place. Dice may not fully understand why he's been blocked, but he knows that it can only be because of one thing. Not to mention that it's all explained in the links in the block notifications. wumbolo ^^^ 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(break #1)

Reading this makes one wonder wtf PBS was thinking when they unblocked without even bothering to consult with the blocking admin, and in light of the clear community consensus, which PBS claims to not have been aware of, and plain commen sense, which they can't claim to not be aware of if they want to be an admin. Not surprised there are multiple calls for arbcom on this. But what I find troubling is them trying to dump on Drmies and claim he acted as inappropriately as PBS did, just for making an obviously justified re-block. That's shameful shit right there. They should strike that comment and post an apology to Drmies asap. There shouldn't be a need for arbcom, PBS should save the community the time and energy of a desysop and resign their admin status. They are clearly unfit for the role. - wolf 22:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• User:Thewolfchild, I appreciate the vote of confidence. I also think that this is a case where one should talk to the blocking admin, but I'm not going to ask for PBS's bit. We all make mistakes (well, except for Bishonen), and that's fine. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno about that. But it was your name so, your call. And since this didn't directly affect me, I don't have anything else add. My work is done here. - wolf 02:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

While I don't think PBS should have unblocked, I'm not sure I see the wisdom of a reblock so fast. The original discussion last 2 hours and 53 minutes. This discussion lasted 5 hours and 5 minutes before the reblock. So this clearly does not meet the requirements for a community endorsed block. Even now, the discussion has still only been just under 17 hours so the requirements for a community endorsed block are still not met. If PBS wanted to revert their actions because they realised they made an epic mistake, then they should have, but I don't see the urgency to reblock otherwise. It's not like Mark Dice had actually done jack shit on wikipedia since they were unblocked so there was an urgent problem that needed to be dealt with. Also, while I don't think it would have made a great difference since most of the meatpuppets don't seem to have even a basic grasp of our policies or guidelines, it may have made a small difference to those who correctly felt that MarkDice hasn't been treated fairly with the reblock. (Note I'm not saying the original block was proper, and I've already said I disagree with the unblock.) This doesn't mean that I'm saying there should be a further unlock. Since PBS has already said they planned to re-block, then that would serve no purpose. Before someone brings it up, we've established several times already that this is one policy area where for better or worse, WP:IAR should never be applied and all community sanctioning decisions should be left open a minimum of 24 hours since otherwise we just get a royal mess. My read is effectively that was what the community wanted when they made the decision anyway. Note also that this is not criticism of the close of the original discussion either. There was no reason why such a block needed to be community endorsed and if an admin just wanted to make a quick check that they weren't making a major mistake that was fine. So the close of the old discussion was fine, although the block itself should not be treated as community endorsed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2019 (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 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.

---

This editor [441] User:BreakingZews strikes me as editing pretty much how I would expect a Pro-Trump Russian troll to edit. First focused on denial of Trump's family separation policy and now has turned their attention to whitewashing Konstantin Kilimnik. Displays knowledge of policy (BLP, deletion) far beyond what an account with so few edits usually has. Additional eyes requested. Legacypac (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

These days everyone has a bias. Wikipedia articles related to U.S. politics generally have a strong left wing bias and very strong anti-Trump bias. I am highly informed on U.S. politics and everything that has to do with Trump, his administration and his policies. But I am not here to sabotage or to have an political influence, but to correct factually incorrect statements, and to be a tiny part of creating a better political balance on Wikipedia. The overwhelming left wing bias on many articles, often with strong misinformation, can only benefit from having an input from someone like myself who's first concern is to get those articles closer to the truth. Trump has never had any "family separation policy", his "Zero Tolerance Policy" had nothing to do with separating families on the border, on the contrary the only cause of those separations was the 2016 ruling on the Flores settlement(which was a part reversal of a 2015 ruling). Unfortunately because it is a complex issue, the details quickly get lost in news articles fueled by partisan hate against the President. Regarding Kilimnik, he is a living person and unproven allegations should not be listed in wikipedia as facts. Yes, he was indicted for involvement in Manafort's financial and lobbying "crimes", but NOT for any involvement in "Russian interference" in the 2016 election. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soap box for Russian collusion conspiracies. I have had another Wikipedia account which I used for completely different subjects(Music and entertainment) and have learned some of the basics, but I am not very active here and feel like I lack a lot more knowledge on how to best manoeuvre Wikipedia editing, so I'll take your comment about my "knowledge of policy" as a compliment. BreakingZews (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from post 1932 American Politics broadly construed. This editor is clearly here with a WP:RGW agenda that is inconsistent with our policies and guidelines and I do not believe is self correctable based on their above comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like a plan. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Being neutral on President Trump is close to impossible, nobody with any interest in U.S. politics could be "neutral" on the President. I am slightly to the right but pretty balanced. For example I am against all gun ownership. I am against religion. I am for tax-payer funded healthcare and education. Does that make me an "pro-Trump Russian troll"? BreakingZews (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBan from AP2 broadly construed. Clearly here to push a POV. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not here to "push a POV", I am here to help make Wikipedia more balanced. BreakingZews (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support--esp. given their remark here, "The overwhelming left wing bias on many articles, often with strong misinformation...", which is just a fancy way of saying "fake news, folks". Drmies (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support "Trump has never had any "family separation policy", his "Zero Tolerance Policy" had nothing to do with separating families on the border": factually inaccurate, evident of the editor's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely and completely wrong there. I have read just about everything that I could get my hands on, on that issue. Read the wording of the Zero Tolerance Policy yourself and you will see that it does not contain a word about separating families. Read the 2014 and 2016 revisions of the Flores Settlement and you will see that the 2016 revision is what forced the Trump administration to separate children from their families on the border. BreakingZews (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter that I am actually providing correct information? But yes, I get it, you guys don't like Trump and are on the left, and do absolutely not want a balanced Wikipedia. You want to throw anyone who does not share YOUR POV out... no matter how well informed and correct their editing is. BreakingZews (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You are providing false information. And your AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump administration family separation policy was WP:POINTY. And I'm not replying to you again. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No I am providing perfectly correct information, that you do not like, because it does not fit with your own political agenda. The rubbish Esquire article does not take THE LAW or the Flores Settlement into account. The Trump administrations policy was to FOLLOW THE LAW. Not to separate children from the parents. BreakingZews (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think this comment is your nail.--Jorm (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@BreakingZews: The Washington Post leans left but is factually reliable, they have an article about how John Kelly proposed intentionally separating children from their parents at the boarder[442]. Tornado chaser (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post is extremely biased against the President, they even changed their motto to "Democracy dies in Darkness" when he won the election. They may be reliable on most other subjects but their reporting on the President is extremely biased and not reliable. But, if you look at what Kelly said in the article, "But the laws are the laws", that is what I have been saying... the Trump administration has had an policy of FOLLOWING THE LAW, and the 2016 revision of the Flores settlement made clear that while children should be released from detention as quickly as possible, the parents were not given "any affirmative right of release". Meaning the parents were prosecuted according the LAW, and the children had to be released. BreakingZews (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@BreakingZews: Why are you ignoring the fact that Kelly specifically suggested separating families as a detterent: [Wolf] Blitzer pressed him [John Kelly] on the point: Is the Department of Homeland Security going to separate children from their parents?

“Yes, I am considering, in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network, I am considering exactly that,” Kelly said. “They will be well cared for as we deal with their parents.". Tornado chaser (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinate topic ban from AP2, of the broadly construed flavor. This is pretty clear.--Jorm (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban per BreakingZews' POV, which they have made no effort to hide. WP:RGW indeed. Miniapolis 00:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV. Everyone has a bias. And yes, in this particular discussion I have been honest and made no attempt to hide my biases. But my editing of Wikipedia is primarily about correcting factually incorrect information, and perhaps trying to eliminate some of the stronger left wing bias that can be found in many articles regarding U.S. politics on Wikipedia. I guess it doesn't matter that I have been doing a good job at improving Wikipedia, that I am extremely well informed on U.S. politics, only thing that seems to matter here is that I am admittedly slightly right wing in a sea of left wing editors. There is an extremely polarized atmosphere in U.S. politics these days, nobody is neutral or balanced. And since I am not one of the editors that hate the President then it is no surprise that some of you want to stop me. Again, I am against gun ownership, I am for tax-payer funded health care and education, I am against religion, so in many ways quite far to the left, I am not some far-right extremist, but because I am not a Trump hater, because I do not have a left wing bias, then suddenly I am a "Pro-Trump Russian troll". Nothing wrong with my edits, they are factual and correct. BreakingZews (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes we all have bias but you can't tell what a good editor believes from how they edit. Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you easily can. Most U.S. politics related articles suffer from this problem, that there is overwhelmingly left wing editors. But I guess it is just when those edits don't match up with your own bias that it becomes a problem. BreakingZews (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

BreakingZews, there is a lot of disagreement among Wikipedia editors, enough to keep dispute resolution, a dozen noticeboards, article talk pages and arbitration boards busy as editors try to resolve many editing disputes. BUT, we are all colleagues, despite disagreements, working to improve this project. I think you probably have good intentions but you can't start your discussions with your colleagues with accusations of left-wing bias and claims of propaganda. If you start from a position of hostility and negativity, you will be met with a backlash from editors who've devoted a great deal of their time to improving this enormous project.

I have no doubt that our political articles could be improved (as almost all articles on WP could be improved) but could you adopt a position of working with other editors instead of being adversarial? You won't agree with everyone but you have to be able to work with others in this collaborative project. Because if you can't accept that you might not always be right and that it is better to work with others rather than condemning them, your time editing on Wikipedia is likely to be short. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Look at how this whole discussion and attempt to get me booted here started, with LegacyPac calling me a "Pro-Trump Russian Troll"... isn't that "adversarial", isn't that a clear sign of political bias in itself? I of course understood after the first couple of "Support" here that I would be booted, so that's not even a consideration from my behalf anymore. And I have always been willing to compromise and if proven wrong I always try to learn and change my position. But I experience this as an VERY unfair attack on myself, and absolutely not deserved considering my (relative few and modest) contributions as editor on Wikipedia. BreakingZews (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please reread what I actually said. I did not call you a "Pro-Trump Russian Troll" Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, just that my editing is like that of a "Pro-Trump Russian Troll"... big difference? BreakingZews (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support When my conservative friend Ad Orientem supports a topic ban, I must sit up and listen. I do not believe that this person is an actual Russian troll, but rather that they have (sadly) decided to act in the interest of Russian trolls and White House trolls and their divisive disinformation operations. To deny the existence of family separation, which is not some abstract "policy" but an absolute fact which has shattered thousands of families, as verified by countless reliable sources, is particularly reprehensible. This encyclopedia must reflect what actual reliable sources say about controversial topics, not parrot anybody's disinformation operations, whether those campaigns originate in the White House, the Kremlin, or elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Cullen328, I didn't know Ad Orientem was a a conservative. BreakingZews, I'm not sure if you get my point. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Eh. My politics were conservative in 1688 or 1774 on this side of the pond. Most people would label me a reactionary. But I self identify as a classical conservative. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

...discussion on things...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just following orders. EEng Of course the family separations are a fact. But that there was an "Trump Administration Family Separation Policy", as is the title of the wikipedia page, is completely false. They had a Zero Tolerance Policy which simply ment that all illegal attempts at crossing border would be prosecuted according to the law, no exceptions. But the ONLY reason children were separated from their families was because of the 2016 revision of the Flores law, which demanded that accompanied children be quickly released from detention while the same did not apply for their parents. This was misrepresented in all the mainstream media, who largely ignored that these separations were demanded by the law, and instead put the blame on an non-existing Trump "Family Separation Policy", which now has it's own wikipedia page(Which is absurd). When Trump signed the executive order that stopped the family separations he did not change ANY of his own policies, only thing he changed was that he ordered the Attorney General to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 ("Flores settlement"), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings". So the only thing that was changed was the Flores Settlement and that stopped the separations of families. These are the facts, but much of the U.S. media has become so polarized that they don't stick to the facts, they omit vital information when it fits their agenda. Luckily all the relevant information in this case is available directly from the sources, the wording of the Zero Tolerance Policy is available, the Flores settlement from the original 1997 version to the latest 2015 and 2016 revisions are available on the net, the Executive Order is available, so just reading those documents without relying on the media at all is enough to get the facts in this case. Unfortunately it seems most of the editors of the "Trump Administration Family Separation Policy" page have not read those documents, or are ignoring them for political reasons. BreakingZews (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Your repeated insistence that the law requires that refugee families be wrenched apart and destroyed, and large numbers of children dispersed to who knows where without any tracking or opportunities for reunification with their parents is rock solid evidence that you are unfit to edit this encyclopedia. Repeating the spurious Whire House talking points over and over and over again does not help your case. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC) And what exactly is that based on? And no, I said nothing about tracking or how the families have been dispersed. The only reason for the family separations was the Flores law, that is a fact. Without the Flores law there would have been no reason to separate families. The Zero Tolerance Policy had nothing to do with that specifically, it only clarified that all who broke the law and entered or attempted to enter the country illegally should be prosecuted according to the law. I am not repeating White House talking points, but explaining what I have understood about this issue after studying it very thoroughly. The Trump administration simply had a policy of following the LAWS, both regarding illegal border crossings and regarding the detaining of children and their parents as described in the Flores settlement. And you can easily find the evidence yourself by reading the documents I already mentioned. BreakingZews (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) There is no such thing as the "Flores law" as Congress passed no such law and you seem instead to be referring to the legally binding settlement of a lawsuit filed by Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15 year old refugee from the civil war in El Salvador who was arrested, handcuffed and strip searched when she tried to seek asylum during the Reagan administration in 1985. According to CNN, that settlement "requires the government to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to their parents, other adult relatives or licensed programs." To twist that settlement into justification for shattering thousands of families is a grotesque distortion of reality. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC) The Flores Settlement is often referred to as the "Flores Law" and as you said is considered legally binding. But what you seem to ignore is that while the 2015 revision of the settlement called for the release of both the accompanied child and the mother/parents of the child, the 2016 revision partly reversed that so that only the child should be released, not the mother/parents. That 2016 ruling on the Flores settlement was the only reason for the family separations. From the Wikipedia article on Reno v. Flores: "In 2016, in Flores v. Lynch, Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz, joined by Judges Michael J. Melloy and Ronald M. Gould, reversed in part, finding that the Agreement applied to all detained children but that it did not give their parents any affirmative right of release" BreakingZews (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Wikilawyering here to try to support an obviously catastrophic and failed policy, as reported by countless reliable sources, is counterproductive for your future as an editor here. I recommend that you stop, but keep trying if you want. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC) I have never supported the separation of children from their families. I am simply pointing out the FACTS, which have been completely ignored in that article... even the title of the article is a lie in itself. There never was any "Trump Administration Family Separation Policy", that is simply a lie. That article is an example of Wikipedia being used for political propaganda purposes. BreakingZews (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support to stop the battleground timesink. Wagging my finger, though, at calling any editor a Russian troll in an ANI report or any other circumstance. While it might be convenient shorthand, it lowers us into the trollish muck, and encourages other editors to make those kinds of attacks in their ANI reports, and then the next you know everyone is calling everyone names and it doesn't stop no matter how many haikus you write. Leviv ich 03:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Except I did not call them a Russian troll. Anyway this editor is moving into block worthy territory per WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Saying "strikes me as editing pretty much how I would expect a fucking asshole to edit" is the same thing as calling someone a fucking asshole but with more words. Anyway I agree and point out that there's unanimous support here and the problematic behavior continues. Leviv ich 06:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary to call out their nationality, what would our Russian editors think of that? It would certainly be offensive to them. Wikipedia is not a platform to make political remarks. -- Flooded w/them 100s 07:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to clear it up, if there was a misunderstanding, I am not Russian. BreakingZews (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - per this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I think Trump is an asshole, therefore I don't touch his articles as I consider myself to be too biased. If you can't do this off your own bat, the community will need to do it for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • So you think Trump is an asshole, but you don't think your bias plays in when you vote "support" for banning me here? BreakingZews (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: I'm sure you know that this page is not exempt from WP:BLPTALK or WP:NPA, please tweak that comment. Fish+Karate 09:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Being an opinion, his comment has fuck-all to do with BLP, so unless you're suggesting Donald Trump is editing here, your finger-wagging is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 10:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Oh come off it. If I said "I think X is a great big meddling know-it-all cunt", that wouldn't be a personal attack because I prefaced it with "I think"? And whether or not someone edits here is irrelevant to whether or not personal attacks are acceptable. Fish+Karate 14:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I agree with you that I think doesn't excuse any and all BLP vios. But saying someone you think is an asshole is a minor BLP violation. Being an "asshole" is not really a clear accusation of some wrong doing or malfeasance, just that you don't like them. I don't think we should tolerate it when it serves limited purpose, especially when it keeps getting repeated. But this case it seems to serve sufficient purpose IMO we should just allow it. Personal attacks aren't the same thing, since they are directed at people were are intended to collaborate with. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support only Trump family separation article ban, oppose indef or politics ban, and weak support trouting nom. The editor was indeed POV-pushing when they were exclusively using political talking points instead of making other arguments based on WP:CRITERIA. Just because I agree with the editor on the subject matter's political substance (which is actually supported by some good reliable sources that the editor did not cite) won't make me defend this kind of editing. There are many POV pushers on the archives of that talk page from both sides (and none were punished interestingly, except for socking) and I've watchlisted user talk pages of some of those that seemed SPA-ish to me. With regards to Konstantin Kilimnik, it is inappropriate for OP to completely revert an edit purely because it contains a grammatical error, if the edit had changed the meaning of the text. BreakingZews was accurately summarizing the article, and if anyone was POV-pushing/edit-warring/OWN-pushing it was Legacypac though this is not nearly enough for a serious boomerang ban. Last but not least, if there is evidence of socking, it belongs to WP:SPI, otherwise WP:ROPE never hurt especially when we have a net-positive editor. wumbolo ^^^ 10:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  Wumbolo, we're not talking about a "net-positive editor". About half of this users' edits have been on this AN/I thread. The other half have been trying to delete an article on a clearly notable subject, and some POV-pushing edits on democratic socialism, MS-13, and Konstantin Kilimnik. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  Recognizing that my voice will be lost in the foregone conclusion here, I agree with Wumbolo. On display in this thread is the sort of tribalism that makes AN/I reek. If only AN/I would seriously deal with left-leaning POV pushers the same way they deal with those they perceive to be pushing to the right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  In agreement with Sandy and Wumbolo. Maybe the family separate policy thing was a bit of a push (though on a first blush through the AFD and move discussion the point about not being a neutral title has high relevance) but the other edits, while possibly seen as pro-right, doesn't look like the typical sock-puppet or similar right-wing pusher. Disappointed that editors above want to bury their heads in sand to eliminate a seeming constructive voice from discussion rather than try to work at compromise. --Masem (t) 16:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you guys(Wumbolo, SandyGeorgia, Masem) for daring to speak up against the consensus. I am very disappointed in the treatment I am getting here, I am pretty new to editing politics related issues on Wikipedia, and obviously have a lot to learn about Wikipedia customs and regulations, but instead of starting a vote to block me from commenting, Legacypac could at least have just sent me a message and discussed this with me first. BreakingZews (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What you are seeing here is a *fairly recent* trend (that from someone who has been editing more than a decade) on ANI, that was started when the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard gained power as a central point for using topic bans as a way to promote or prevent points of view that differed from those who frequented that board. Any sort of discretion or reasoning in applying these topic bans has been long lost, as they have become a blunt instrument of power rather than a last resort to be applied against truly problematic editors. I am bemused to see an editor responding on this thread, in support of the topic ban, who gives zero reasoning for his position, but who recently removed a COPYVIO tag from an article, while leaving his COPYVIO in place such that an admin had to scrub the article (no one yet has called that editor for his behavior). So, any idiot can pile on here, even if their own editing shows zero respect for important Wikipedia policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban until editor learn to restrain his axe-grinding impulses. --Calton | Talk 10:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on politics as well as a ban on replying to ANI comments. Seriously, this editor seems to be trying to kill this thread with a lead pipe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban I personally can't stand Trump, but the obvious pitchfork mentally here is disheartening. Paul August ☎ 00:04, 19 February 2019 (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 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.

---

Can someone block User:161.73.255.116? See contributions. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:08, 19 February 2019 (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.

Swapachi8890

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.

---

Swapachi8890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is dedicated to promoting Anand Teltumbde. Has made no contributions anywhere else. He edit wars to restore the promotional and POV content on this article and calls others a "trollers" in edit summaries.[443]

I already warned him for his disruption[444] but he is not giving up and still making insults in edit summaries[445] and  still he is not willing to WP:COMMUNICATE. I believe a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Support an indefinite spam-block on the SPA. ∯WBG^converse 16:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Support as well. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. Ping me when the inevitable sock puppets show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2019 (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 adding uw-vandalism4 notices

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.

---

161.73.194.241 (talk · contribs) has been adding inappropriate warnings and reverting edits. Could this be a LTA sockmaster? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2019 (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 at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/White genocide conspiracy theory by IP 77.97.213.95

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 off-topic comment (now removed as off-topic chat) includes the threat that "anti-trust measurements for your paypal donations may be put forward."

In general, the IP seems to be WP:NOTHERE, but procedure is procedure. I notified of the discussion here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh the IP has gone way beyond legal threats. See [446] "Anglo-Saxon reporting in. Displeased with genocide. Will repay in kind" "If we go down, we are going nuclear. We do not need "codes" to do it. I think you should consider your wording and not draw the conclusion that Agenda 2030 is complete. To the last child...we WILL bring you with us to the firestorm.Luxembourg is the Eagles Nest so we hear..." And when I warned him about the firestorm comment, he replied "And I/we will. You think you are impervious? Tay Sachs is VERY selective. You might have f*cked with the wrong man" (I added the Wikilink). Doug Weller talk 17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Same loon on this IP for the last few months, so IP blocked for 3 months, talk page access proactively removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Careful with the attacks, I rather like aquatic birds. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:14, 19 February 2019 (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.

Horizonlove and Calvin999

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 boldly moving this from WP:AIV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)}

• Horizonlove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Dance Club Songs chart:. This user keeps adding a bulk addition of content back after me having removed it several times because it hasn't been discussed or approved by discussion and consensus for keeping it. It is completely altering the objective of the article and making an article with length issues far, far too long. I've put forward why on the talk page of the primary linked page as I was asked, and warned and explained on said user's user talk, but user will not listen. The user has even said he or she will (and now has) make a third revert in order to see whether or not he or she will indeed face action from an administrator for making three reverts within 24 hours (which is actually one hour), which is just wreckless and disruptive.

  I went to the article talk page and explained. I was reverted. I explained some more. I was still reverted. I warned and explained on user's talk page. But no. The user doesn't seem to understand that I have explained via discussion why the bulk addition cannot stay, but keeps adding it back and being provocative and I think this user would continue to engage in edit warring in the near future and won't accept that there needs to be a consensus for such a large addition of content to an already very detailed and long article.

  Also see: Talk:Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Dance Club Songs chart#Adding post 11th place onwards.

  To be clear, I made a revert 18th AM and removed a sentence shortly after which was unrelated, and two reverts 19th PM. During this time, I have been explaining on the article talk page, have warned the user and have further explained on user's talk page.  — Calvin999 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  User:Calvin999 a lump sum of information on the Wikipedia article "Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Dance Club Songs chart". Removing something that major should be discussed on the talk page before removing as I stated after reverted that edit in the edit summary. He decided to take my advice and open a discussion on the talk page, only after he reverted my revision. On the talk page of the article, he made a statement "...it always has been since I wrote the whole article myself. The bulk addition stays out; it is not to be added back and discussed. If something is removed, it stays out until it has been discussed.", which clearly demonstrates WP:OWN because he created the page. The editor clearly thinks that because he created the page, he has the right to decide what is and isn't added or discussed. Fast forward to February 18, 2019, the user reverted four times in 24 hours. The first revert (within 24 hours) started here [447], followed by [448], and then (today) [449], and lastly (today) [450]. I, however, stopped at 3 in the past 24 hours ([451], [452], and [453]). Between my second and [before the] third revision, the user left a threatening message on my talk page. He stated "...Please stop adding content which has not been authorised for adding via discussion (and has previously been shortened because of violating guidelines). Please acquaint yourself with the history of the article and read my response on the talk page. Another revert and you will have violated the 3RR rule within 24 hours which could lead to a block." If that were the case, shouldn't that user have stopped before making the first revert? Horizonlove (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  One more thing. How can you report me for "breaking the 3RR" with only three reverts ([454], [455], and [456])? According the rule, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page". Please also note that User:Calvin999 continued his behavior on the List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones. He reverted another user and a different user reverted his revision, giving a similar edit summary to mine. And both (User:MPFitz1968 and I) have similarly stated, User:Calvin999 should discuss on the talk paged if he disagrees before making dramatic changes on these pages. Horizonlove (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Doesn't mean you should use 3 just because, that's still edit warring and not listening. Also, I'm not saying I have the right to decide, but there is no consensus for the huge amount you keep adding back. Don't you get that? What gives you the right to say it should stay without discussion? Oh wait, you asked for that, I gave it on the article talk, you ignore and still you revert it. Hmm. Anyway, I've made my case. I'll let an admin go from here.  — Calvin999 18:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  "What gives you the right to say it should stay without discussion?", nothing gives me the right but that information was already there before I came to the page. Removing it without discussion is not the way to go and neither is removing it and then discussing it, both of which you have done. Now when you decided to discuss it on the talk page, which is what I advised you to do, I did not ignore you. I commented there and gave you valid reason why that load of information should stay, but as you stated in your opening comment on that talk page " I wrote the whole article myself. The bulk addition stays out; it is not to be added back and discussed." That means you have already made up in your mind what can/can't be on the page just because you created the page, which is WP:OWN. But yes, it is best to let the admin handle this. Horizonlove (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly, you didn't bother looking through the history of the article or its talk page to see why I removed it. And you still don't get it. And yet you still revert it without recognising why I removed it: it's too long. You asked for discussion, I explained why it couldn't stay and you ignored that too. Then you say you'll revert a third time just to test if you get blocked. I mean, it's ridiculous. No, it's you saying about creating the page, not me. I just said that I wrote it (which I did, can't change fact), and I've been part of the shortening process that other editors have raised (and carried out themselves) for issues about length, which you seem to be ignoring and adding back this bulk of info which is not needed and isn't necessary. Clearly you'd made your mind up because you won't accept that you have no consensus for keeping it, so don't keep accusing me of multiple things that you're actually doing yourself.  — Calvin999 18:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

End of moved content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2019 (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.

GokuFan2001

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.

---

• GokuFan2001 (talk · contribs)

Editor is making repeated unhelpful edits, from adding in unsourced information to removing content with reason. Editor had been warned by myself and others but shows no interest in engaging with other editors. Rusted AutoParts 01:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A bunch of talk page notices. No replies. No talk page edits. Few edit summaries I let them know that communication is required. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

They have paid no mind to your talk page comments, they’re still just doing their disruptive editing. Rusted AutoParts 03:27, 20 February 2019 (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:MetricSupporter89

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.

---

Basically all of this user's edits have been edit warring over variations of American versus British spelling or edit warring over which unit (imperial vs. metric) comes first in an article. As hinted by their username, I think that this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 04:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a very young editor who needs to gain a little more maturity before they can be a productive editor. Their personal goals are a bit at odds with the encyclopedia's. That said, I'm not prepared to say they're not here to help the project, but, having interacted with them a little bit, there is a certain absence of cluefulness. Acroterion (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now it seems that they are logging out to edit: [457] I will be blocking both for 24 hours in the meantime. --Rschen7754 04:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note He's been here before, for the same issue. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Hm, seems I missed that. @Cullen328 and ViperSnake151: from the previous discussion. --Rschen7754 19:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I thought I had seen this issue before, and in fact I see I warned them about it already, just a day before the discussion linked above. See this discussion. I think that's enough warnings, and given their unusual user page (they're on a campaign to fully metricate the United States, they speak American English but "learned Canadian English", calling Spanish "stupid") the situation is not promising.

Proposal: MetricSupporter89 is topic banned from directly changing any unit of measure or any English variant spelling. They may propose changes on an article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Seems reasonable and might give them a chance to learn our ways. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. As linked above, the editor has been warned multiple times. The username makes this sound like it's going to end poorly, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Rschen7754 07:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The alternative is to waste time trying to persuade them to change their ways, but I've never seen that work yet with such a single-minded young person and it almost always ends in an indef block. Hopefully they can direct their energy in more productive directions, while maturing a little. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. Although I worry that leaving the door open for talk page discussion is just inviting disruption of another sort. I have to say, with such a strongly evident WP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW/WP:SPA focus. I'm doubtful there is a general purpose editor to be salvaged from this, and fear this approach will only allow gamesmanship, but if they become disruptive in their talk page interactions in advocating for particular spelling or metric idiosyncrasies, I suppose they can always be brought back here then--and in the meantime it is possible this approach will restrain their edit warring while allowing some useful changes relating to their fixation to filter through. It's worth a shot in any event. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Restoring as this was never closed. --Rschen7754 06:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. This seems to be an established pattern, and it's not a good one. Pretty much the last thing we need around here is another "style warrior" running around, especially when there's a weird nationalism bent to it, combined with a NOTHERE/SOAPBOX "campaign" angle. (I'm thinking back to a similar combination in another editor, which turned into several years of disruption, four nearly back-to-back AEs, a topic ban, a broader topic ban, a block, an indef, and then user-talk editing revocation; we don't need another of those, and should just nip this in the bud before entrenchment occurs). I trust in good faith that the editor can be productive, but this "American metric promotionalism at all costs" shtick doesn't qualify.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:27, 20 February 2019 (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:Yurikanger

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.

---

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

Hi. Some strange edits going on with this user. They have been warned by several users about making null edits, or adding un-needed spaces in the category section on articles (example). However, despite this, they are continuing with this (one, two). Maybe it's linked to the countless declined drafts listed on their talkpage. I don't know if this crap-flooding of watchlists is disruptive, but they don't appear to be communicating about this issue. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

They don't seem to notice toned down messages about their behaviour and the need to stop it. I've given them a warning that should be more effective in getting their attention.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped editing (for now). File this under close and keep an eye on. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:31, 18 February 2019 (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 user resumed editing instead of discussing. Made a strange error, too. I think all solutions that do not include a block have been exhausted.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:DGG is engaging in disruptive editing wrt Moderation Management and Death of Amanda Froistad

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.

---

There was consensus on the Moderation Management talk page that there was too much detail in the Moderation Management article about the related Death of Amanda Froistad, and that the information about the death of Amanda Froistad should be placed in it's on article, lest there be an appearance of WP:COATRACK in the Moderation Management article. There is now an AfD discussion on the Death of Amanda Froistad (which was nominated for deletion by DGG) and the context of why that article was created has been lost because User:DGG placed a G11 speedy deletion template on the Moderation Management article and that article has since been deleted. This significantly handicaps the AfD discussion as editors commenting on it are unable to see the significant discussion regarding the background of the creation of the Death of Amanda Froistad article. When I asked DGG why he used a speedy deletion template for unambiguous promotion, he couldn't point out a part of the article that was unambiguous promotion but rather said parts of it may not be of interest to general readers and admitted that there was no explicit promotion of the organization. The appropriate way to go about this would have been to nominate both of these for AfD, rather than handicapping the conversation about one by removing the other. Additionally, by DGG's own admission, using a G11 speedy deletion was inappropriate for the Moderation Management article as there was no explicit promotion (and I would say no implicit promotion) of Moderation Management in that article. An archived version of the Moderation Management article is linked here for non-admins: https://web.archive.org/web/20190219111822/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderation_Management

I have no issue discussing (or making) changes to content in either article, but the way this was conducted by DGG was unnecessarily disruptive and lacked due diligence, specifically for an administrator. - Scarpy (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@RHaworth: as it was he that did the deed. It might have been best to discuss with him if we are contesting the deletion. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

My opinion: A trout to DGG and a visit to Deletion Review would be the best cause of action here. We don't need an ANI thread, as that is for chronic, intractable behavioral problems. If I am missing something here, please tell me. CoolSkittle (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@CoolSkittle:My friendly amendment here would be that there is appropriate notice is given on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Amanda Froistad to review Talk:Moderation Management when it's restored and that the closing admin on that AfD reviews that same page before making a decision. On a more personal level, myself and others have spent hundreds of hours working articles in the addictions and recovery project. I push myself to maintain due weight, NPOV and to collaborate productively with other editors on addictions and recovery topics that are already very contentious. Hundreds of hours isn't an exaggeration, if I really added it up I'm sure it's closer to thousands between finding the articles, reading, writing and collaborating. Articles like Recovery International and Debtors Anonymous alone were over 100 hours. My contributions to MM wasn't as much, but I do hold myself to very high standards on the topic, and I take the time to read the research carefully, write and collaborate to the best of my ability. I'm not perfect, but a G11 speedy deletion for unambiguous promotion is like someone watching someone burning a book I contributed to in front of me. I'm not expecting a lot of sympathy, but please do realize this kind of behavior has impacts on editor retention. Wikipedians really should treat each other better than this. - Scarpy (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Scarpy: Your first step is to appeal at WP:DRV. If the reviewers thee agree with you t will be restored. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2019 (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.

Jwray

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.

---

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

This post [458] and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MjolnirPants/nonazis along with some interesting recent edits like [459] [460] [461] [462] gives me pause to wonder what User:Jwray is up to at Wikipedia. Seems to be here to WP:RGW and rejects the idea of a neutral editor. Perhaps Jwray would like to explain what his purpose is at Wikipedia? See Special:Contributions/Jwray Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Unless they're a sock, I don't see any reason for this page to sanction them at this time; they do seem close to a Discretionary topic-ban from American Politics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Didn't we just deal with Wikid77 for his blatant racism?--Jorm (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• ... And that is related how? Mr rnddude (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Is there an emerging agenda? Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting a bad feeling from what I'm seeing. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Off hand, I'd say there's this book by Dale Carnegie MjolnirPants should read. Either that or he's being targeted by people with a different political bent than his own with a nothere agenda, and his underlying tendency to use unfortunate metaphors make him an easy target. Or both. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

PS MjolnirPants blocked 31 hours by Cullen. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've alerted them to discretionary sanctions in this area. If they continue to push an agenda or behave disruptively, they can be dealt with at WP:AE or by myself or any other uninvolved admin. I see no direct need to sanction now. They're alerted to DS, which means they know to be on their best behaviour. If they aren't we have means to deal with it quickly. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: You have the patience of a saint. A saint. this edit, made before you DS'd them, mixed with all the other pointyness, merits a nothere block. Specifically, undoing the close of the MJpants thread above, nominating one of his user pages for deletion, and now this bit of disruption/trolling/what have you. Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There was no consensus to close the thread yet in the subsection you created, and you are allowed to undo non-admin closures. It's a poor practice to NAC controversial ANI threads anyway. That's why the block was done after the premature close as well. So don't hold that against this user in any case. --Pudeo (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't try to sidetrack this thread about another user with gravedancing and to dead horse beat another editor. There can be reasons to unclose a thread but we don't expect a sub 1000 edit user to reopen a thread closed by an 137,000 post editor to post smack like he did. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sidetrack this thread. I'm saying he shouldn't be blocked for undoing a non-admin close as that was mentioned. --Pudeo (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur with that specific point. I was surprised that thread got closed as quickly as it did. But I also don't mind looking through the user's contributions for pointyness given their post after undoing the close there and I think Tony's got this spot on. We can probably close this? SportingFlyer T·C 08:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• For the record, I think it's worth noting the one point in User:MjolnirPants/nonazis that Jwray tagged as needing a citation, labeling it a fringe view. I think the DS alert is all that's needed at this point, but we need to be alert for racism. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, and pretty much the same thing here (though that was self-reverted). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I closed that MfD as speedy keep before noticing this thread here. In my opinion, any editor who insists that Wikipedia must entertain the views of FUCKING NAZIS has missed a very fundamental point about what we're doing here, and would be better off joining the nutjobs at Rightpedia. See tolerance paradox. But in general I endorse TonyBallioni's approach at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I would find it hard to disagree with you on that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• endorse close per above. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Before we close this, I do think we should consider this edit. Quote Seriously, fuck wikipedia. It's a cesspit of liberal bias and it mindlessly repeats every obvously false & scurrilous slander ever uttered by the likes of Rita Skeeter. That's the sort of stuff that, combined with trying to delete a whole anti-Nazi essay under the guise of issues with one single line, suggest a WP:NOTHERE attitude at least as far as race is concerned. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that edit has been linked a couple times in this thread already. Only editing pages on alt-right personalities, whining about Wikipedia not being far enough to the right, and trying to get a "no Nazis" essay deleted, all adds up to not being destined for a long career here. Worth keeping an eye on but IMO not definitely worth a ban just yet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I saw that. Tony saw that. Still endorsing to close and let the DS notice sink in. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not file this seeking specific sanctions, just to get more eyes on the user's activities. I'm ok with a close. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2019 (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.

Possible block 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.

---

I saw this note on a vandal's talk page: [463]. It implies that the account is evading a block, but I don't know the background in such a way as to suggest an SPI. Pinging Meters in case you would like to comment. I'm also not sure whether this would fit with a not-here block. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by way of the insertion of multiple "possiblies", "maybes", "might have beens" etc [464] is characteristic of a vandal I've seen and had blocked before. Unfortunately I cannot remember which account it was. There's no hit for this behaviour in my SPI aide memoire User:Meters/SPIs so I don't think there has ever been an SPI. For that matter, I may have overstated things in my warning since I could be wrong that it was an indef block on the original account. Meters (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If you are not sure that this actually was another account, then perhaps no action might be needed. But it still might be worth a look if it looks familiar to anyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Confirmed

• Bob1310 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mikkel13101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mr. Gruk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Then I'm glad I brought it up. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2019 (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.

Odd behavior in new accounts

I apologize if this is a false flag, but i've been taking a look at some new accounts that were created. Upon looking at their user pages, all of them have the same format. They all introduce themselves, list some hobbies of theirs, and put a link to their blog. The blog links differ, and by looking at some of the urls, some of them are related to gambling. I don't feel comfortable clicking on them so I'm not entirely sure. I just thought this was a bit odd and would appreciate any insight on these accounts.

I should also add that there are a lot more accounts listed than these. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 08:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting these. They're commonly known as spambots (although probably human). You can usually see a few each day, but weekends and especially Sunday mornings, for some reason, are a popular time for them. This lot seems to be quite rampant. I'll take these ones out. Just add any more to the list above, or you can often just report them to WP:AIV where most admins know what they are. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced content and promotional edits by COI accounts

• Sambo (martial art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Berzaev Rustam (talk · contribs)
• Countercombatclub (talk · contribs)

The current account began editing after Countercombatclub was blocked for username violation, with a promotional history. The primary aim appears to be promotion of a fight club and Mr. Sudoczki. An explanation was offered here, but the sources are pretty thin [465]. Yesterday I requested a block, and the page has mercifully been protected, but I take some issue with the characterization of edit warring--I was intent on removing unsourced COI content. More attention will be appreciated. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Iban violations: read what I actually wrote

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 have just blocked Godsy due to a series of very recent violations of their interaction ban with Legacypac (logged at WP:EDR). This is the latest in a series of actions between the two editors which resulted in the interaction ban (discussed here) and due to Godsy repeatedly testing the edges of the original restriction it was refined here. Legacypac posted an admin request for review on his talk page, and after reviewing both editors' recent contribs I found that Godsy has been repeatedly editing drafts on which Legacypac is the next-to-most-recent contributor, and not much else (not just incidental while commenting on many drafts, for example). It's pretty clear to me Godsy has specifically targeted Legacypac's contribs, so this is a clear Iban violation.

Since this has been an intermittently active issue for two years and Godsy seems to be testing the limits of the refined restriction this week, I have blocked indefinitely expecting that the block will not be lifted without some kind of assurance that this will be the last time we need to discuss it here.

To that end, and owing to the scope of the hounding, I propose that Godsy is indefinitely banned from drafts including any page in Draft: or Draft talk: namespace, userspace drafts outside his own userspace, from miscellany for discussion, and from any project discussion regarding drafts, all broadly construed.

If there is consensus here in any direction, any admin is free to modify Godsy's block as I may be unavailable for some time today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Good block. Godsy was clearly—albeit subtly—continuing their feud with LP with draftspace the theatre, presumably as being further off the radar than mainspace. If this was a recent "thing" then it could probably be resolved, as there's usually the potential for self-education: but after two years, self-education would appear to be lacking. I daresay an appeal might succeed in the future; I wouldn't advocate one for much less than six months, though. ——SerialNumber54129 12:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban from MfD, if unblocked. MfD is a high profile forum not amenable to subtle harassment. No sign of problems there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not exactly sure editing after him is a violation. In fact, the I-ban page says "the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other." I haven't seen any direct interactions. The specific terms of the I-ban also don't seem to have been violated. That aside, I'm really having a hard time understanding why Godsy feels the need to edit these minor drafts, and can't stay as far as possible away from Legacypac. While this seems to circumvent the interaction ban, this is definitely continuing the feud. I also have another minor issue with admins dropping indef blocks and then coming to the community for reinforcement. This in effect community bans the editor and makes a successful appeal much more difficult. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Remember this isn't simply a normal interaction ban. The wording was modified as part of this discussion Special:PermanentLink/800239899#So unhappy to post this as a result of community concerns. While the issues highlight above aren't direct violations of XfC limitation, they reflect the communities concerns about the two editing the same pages. Editors expressed concern about their fringe interaction in other places e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#IBAN violation?. I think there have been more but I admit I couldn't find them. Either way the editors should have understood the greater need to take care surrounding any edits which seem to relate to the other editor. Anyway more importantly, the whole point of interaction bans whatever their wording is to cut out interactions between editors when they aren't seen as productive. Editors are supposed to understand they need to stay away from each other as much as possible, not follow them around. If Godsy is mysteriously appearing on each page edited by LegacyPac, and often does not appear on other pages, this is a very strong indication they aren't obeying the iban. I haven't looked at the evidence, but if Ivanvector's assessment is true, it seems a very likely iban violation and would demand some sort of block for violation unless they can offer some reasonable explanation which doesn't involve them following the ibanned editor's contribs and then editing just after. (The only time I can see it justified looking the the contribs of someone your ibanned with would be when you're looking into filing a complain about a violation. And when you do so, you should never edit any page you saw in your investigation, even if you think you would have discovered it independently. Likewise, if you see the editor's name your watch list, you should likely ignore the page. I mean if it's had multiple edits it may occasionally be justified to check it out, but this should be done with great care.) Frankly the history means it's unlikely that Godsy has any reasonable explanation, and also means an indef is IMO justified. (And of course any block can be appealed, so if Godsy really does have a good explanation, they can still offer it.) Remember also this could easily be considered WP:Hounding even without an iban. This doesn't mean an editor just happening to edit a page not long after an editor they are ibanned with would always be a violation, since it's reasonable that may happen by accident especially if there is a good reason why both editors would have independently been interested in that page (e.g. it concerns something in the news, by which I don't mean ITN recently, it's TFA, it was listed on some noticeboard etc) but too many 'coincidences' give reasonable cause for concern. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indefinite /= permanent. I see problematic behaviour and my two options are: do nothing, or block entirely. A more refined sanction is definitely apporopriate here but admins don't have the authority to unilaterally dole out limited bans in situations like this. So what should we do?

As for not violating "the specific terms" of the ban, that's kind of a side point here: the history of this dispute has several examples of Godsy clearly following Legacypac but not quite violating the specific terms of the ban, which is how I read the conclusion of the second discussion I linked to. As Legacypac pointed out in today's talk page request, the drafts which Godsy edited after Legacypac this week were all obscure pages in idle userspaces which Legacypac moved to the draft namespace, which Godsy then commented on less than a day later, during a time when Godsy was not doing anything else. All 14 of the drafts that Godsy edited today (15 Feb, UTC) were recently edited by Legacypac, all but one of those on 13 Feb. The last time before that that Godsy edited a draft was on 3 Feb, which was also the next edit after one by Legacypac a few days earlier. I am open to there being an innocent explanation for that pattern, but with Godsy being known to have some kind of grudge against Legacypac it seems doubtful. To me it suggests that Godsy was specifically going to pages appearing in Legacypac's recent contributions, not just going around flagging new promising drafts as part of their regular activity and incidentally overlapping with drafts Legacypac had edited. And that is a continuation of the hounding behaviour referred to in the second discussion, so additional action is warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

My view on this is that if you think a block you have just made needs to be reviewed on AN/ANI, you should probably bring the matter to AN/ANI for discussion before a block is placed, not afterwards. I don't think Godsy necessarily needs to be restricted from all draft space, just from editing drafts that Legacypac has edited, as that appears to be the issue. Fish+Karate 15:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the block to be reviewed. I'm very comfortable with this block. If there's not consensus to do something else here I'm quite happy to just leave Godsy blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: If you are not asking for the block to be reviewed, then what are you asking for? Note the title of this section is "Iban violations: request review". Paul August ☎ 18:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I propose that Godsy is indefinitely banned from drafts including any page in Draft: or Draft talk: namespace, userspace drafts outside his own userspace, from miscellany for discussion, and from any project discussion regarding drafts, all broadly construed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I think the point is that if there is consensus for any other action, then hopefully someone will enact this consensus. This would I assume include a consensus for an unblock or reduction of term of the block, since a community consensus shouldn't be ignored. (I'm assuming it's following our policies and guidelines since otherwise it isn't really a consensus.) Ivanvector has specifically proposed an alternative which would allow an unblock, but it's the communities decision if they want to endorse that proposal, suggest something else, or just leave things as they are. If there's no consensus for any other action, then the block will stand, although of course since it's also a simple administrative block and not a site ban, it may be lifted with by a suitable appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

For editors to review Godsy's I-ban violations, I assume? ——SerialNumber54129 19:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment this is clearly an IBAN violation; I don't think it justifies an infinite block (a week may be enough IMO), but indef != infinite. The reason for the interaction is clear; Legacypac has been moving a lot of {{Userspace draft}} tagged draft-like pages from user space to draft space recently (where they would be eligible for WP:G13 deletion). Draft:Marin_Kristo_Frasheri-Gjoca, for example, was created in 2011 by an editor with 3 edits and has been ignored since then. I'd support in principle a restriction along the lines of "Godsy may only edit articles in draft-space by adding referenced content to them to improve them so they may be moved to mainspace", but from experience that will result in at least two more ANI threads. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• From the description, it sounds to me like an IBAN violation. Maybe a week or two for reflection. Their unblock request is most unpromising. It is a shame that this goes on. Such a waste. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I think the TBAN is not good. I agree with GoldenRing that cautioning Godsy (which I did on his talk page earlier) to check more carefully about avoiding the appearance of violating the IBAN. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• An iban is an iban, I guess. However, it is not possible for someone who cares about drafts (whether in draftspace or userspace) to engage with that area without interacting with Legacypac. An iban with legacypac goes a long way towards a de facto tban on drafts. I don't think it's controversial to say that legacypac's approach to drafts can be, well, controversial. He is the one (in my perhaps limited experience, anyway) far and away most likely to push the envelope with regard to deletion of drafts, with apparent willingness to take actions or !vote in ways that test the procedural gray area or subvert deletion-related PAGs/conventions. As consistent as he is with this, it makes sense to me that someone who cares about what happens in draftspace/userspace may likely take issue with Legacypac's methods. In other words, if one is looking for particular issues or actions that come up regarding drafts, it's not unlikely that legacypac will be the one that pops up as responsible. The reality is that if one person is best known for a pattern of controversial actions in an area, there will be corresponding patterns of people addressing those actions, and that could be framed as hounding rather than more straightforward maintenance/editing. I'm not trying to turn this into a case against legacypac here, to be clear (I also don't want to give the impression that I don't think legacypac doesn't do some good work around here), but rather trying to frame the nature of such an iban/tban in such a space. We'll see if I'm putting my foot in my mouth, I guess, though. I don't think I know anything about their history, hadn't seen the past threads, and haven't read gone through them with any real thoroughness, so there might be more to the story than I realize. Ultimately, an iban is an iban, I suppose, and so a block seems merited. Indef + tban definitely seems like overkill for this situation though. Without knowledge of the past, I wouldn't formally weigh in on the block, but Oppose tban. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I am a little uncomfortable with this block. Editing pages that have been edited by the other user is not a violation of the letter of an interaction ban (so long as the edit is not a revert). And while Godsy's contributions could be explained by him following Legacypac's edits, the explanation he has offered also seems very plausible to me, when combined with the insight from Rhododendrites above. I'm not saying Ivanvector acted wrongly - I would almost certainly have done the same - but I think, given the explanation, that Godsy ought to be unblocked with a ticking-off for not checking which user has moved pages to draft space. GoldenRing (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing are you aware he flooded my watchlist to let me know he is watching me twice before? Once it was a series of meaningless edits to random pages and another time a series of opposes to a bunch of MfDs I started.

His current unblock request is an attack on my editing that violates the IBAN.

While I work to delete a lot of junk User:Legacypac/CSD_log I also regularly move AfC pages and old userpages into mainspace that meet our N and V criteria. I operate well within policy and practice. I've even helped write some of the policy and guidelines such as the current G13 wording. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• It is a violation of the IBAN but not clear/disruptive enough to justify the indefinite block. Reduce the block to 3 days or a week. -- Flooded w/them 100s 09:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I really don't think t-bans should imposed unless there's any evidence of actual problematic edits in the area. And of the two editors concerned, it's not Godsy the one who's been engaged in draft-related activities that they know the community disapporoves of. – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a very good and serious point. Legacypac does a massive amount of abandoned draft rescue, but he has a small error rate that multiplied by the number results in a fair number of individual problem actions. I don’t review Legacypac’s work, there is no way I could keep up. Godsy reviewing legacypac’s work is in principle a good thing. What was not ok was Godsy doing massive numbers of pointless edits to pages in Legacypac’s wake, thus filling Legacypacs watchlist with Godsy links. Godsy should be allowed, encouraged, to bring to a forum actual problems, but he should not be doing trivial edits specific to Legacypac’s recently edited pages. Follow Legacypac’s edit history to review, for sure, but do not make a noise doing it for pages where there is no substantive problem, and if there is, bring it to some talk page for others to review. I suggest WT:AfC, or WT:Drafts. A clear cut rule for Godsy would this be: Do not edit drafts edited by Legacypac, instead raise problems for others to review at WT:AfC, or WT:Drafts. MfD should not be part of this, as MfD is already an active well-watched forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Are you suggestion we remove the iban? Because if not, sorry but Godsy reviewing Legacypac's work is not a good thing as long as the iban is in place. Godsy should not be following or reviewing Legacypac's contributions or work, and they should not be bringing any problems relating to Legacypac anywhere except iban violations to ANI or somewhere else appropriate. If Godsy is actually doing anything you suggest, then the the indef is a good thing, and should stay until they can convince us or at least an admin they will stop it. But I think Godsy understands this though, since in their appeal they appear to be denying they are in any way intending to review Legacypac's contributions, they are just reviewing an area of interest without paying attention to who made said contributions. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I read the Iban differently perhaps. There is nothing wrong with Godsy reviewing legacypac contributions, as long as he does it silently. The trivial edits were harassing. I think there should be no issue with Godsy lodging a complaint about Legacypac, as long as the complaint is upheld. The following and editing of pages is what is not ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I won't say it's okay for Godsy to review Legacypac contribs silently since it misses the purpose of iban i.e. that Godsy needs to stay away from Legacypac (which is ultimately the over-reaching goal of any iban, the community no longer trusts them to interact so they are required to stay away from each other). But it's technically not sanctionable if Godsy does nothing about what they review. Of course it's likely to destroy any chance of the iban being lifted if we become aware it's happening. I'd note if Godsy really is reviewing Legacypac's contributions, then they have no excuse for what happened here. They clearly knew it was Legacypac. As for complaints being upheld, it depends what you mean about complaints. Complaints to arbcom would generally be fine. Complaints ANs may occasionally be okay, but if Godsy keeps opening them, they're likely to find at least some of them aren't upheld. And even if many of them were, there's going to be very low tolerance of someone with an i-ban opening complaints which aren't upheld. Notably, when these complaints aren't to do with iban violations, I think people are going to question why Godsy is the one who keeps bringing complaints and even potentially ignore them or simply say no because it was Godsy who opened them. (Also realistically, if complaints against Legacypac in ANs keep getting upheld, it's unlikely Legacypac will still be around to complain about.) Starting discussions about anything Legacypac did anywhere else are not on, whether WT:AfC, WT:Drafts or whatever. Note that I don't use the word "complaint", since a discussion at WT:AfC, WT:Drafts shouldn't generally deal with user behaviour anyway AFAIK. It would be disagreement with something Legacypac did and discussion over the best way to handle whatever it is, not a complaint about behaviour. Godsy shouldn't be doing that as long as they are ibanned, they lost that privilege. Other people can deal with it independently. If they don't tough. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• I think the block was harsh and that Godsy was not in violation of his i-ban. I also believe more attention should be paid to the action that was taken by Godsy and whether or not it was appropriate. If it can be demonstrated that the action itself was inappropriate, that would raise a more legitimate concern regarding a potential violation of the iBan. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Unblock and remove i-ban. This is a perfect example of an i-ban itself being more harmful then any harm it was meant to avoid. In short: I don't see anything wrong with Godsy's edits. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Tavix it is not the substance of the edits we are dealing with. This is textbook WP:HOUND and remember that Hound is why I tried multiple times to get this IBAN instated and that at least twice before HOUND has been breached by them after the IBAN was imposed. At times hounding me is pretyy much their only activity on site. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You are very messy editor and I am grateful that Godsy is willing to clean up your messes. We should be encouraging this clean-up effort instead of blocking him for it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Remove your baseless personal attack. 2. Following me to a series of obscure draft pages is not cleanup any more than when he followed me to a bunch of random pages (including ones up for deletion) to make whitespace and other meaningless edits or the time he followed me to a bunch of MfDs to oppose my nominations while doing nothing with any other MfDs or anything else on the site. I ran a friendly demonstration for User:SmokeyJoe] so he cound understand the problem. I'd be happy to run one for you with your permission. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I regret and apologize that you took my observation as a personal attack. It seems we have different opinions on what constitutes clean-up and/or hounding, so I will leave it at that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support tban, good block, per Ivanvector, SmokeyJoe and Nil Einne. Godsy's February 15 edits were a clear, intentional violation of the iban, and the community should not tolerate long term harassment of one editor by another. Four reasons I support:

1. When the original iban was imposed, Godsy changed his userpage to a countdown clock for the 12 months until he could appeal the iban, with the edit summary "It is important to note that there is a great deal of hope. No, no?". Unfortunately, that obsessive behavior continues to this day.
2. It has been suggested in this thread and in Godsy's unblock request that if you threw a dart at draftspace, you're likely to hit an edit by Legacypac. Somehow, none of Godsy's edits in 2019 have been to pages edited by Lpac (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) until February 15, when every edit Godsy made was one or two edits after Lpac (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff), including gems like these:
   • at Draft:Lake 'n Sea – Lpac edit followed by Godsy adding promising tag, removing promising tag
   • at Draft:Jesus Northwest – Lpac edit followed by Godsy adding promising tag, removing promising tag
3. This is not a new thing. When ArbCom denied Godsy's case request against Lpac, he was advised both gently ("...there are lots and lots of articles to 'unambiguously improve' on Wikipedia that have nothing to do with Legacypac, and those other articles are where you should be investing your content efforts...") and directly ("Don't modify Legacypac's edits."). In his unblock request, Godsy more or less says he will continue this behavior.
4. The revised iban obviously isn't working, and a stronger community sanction should be in place when Godsy is unblocked. When Godsy's behavior led to a revision of the iban, the closer wrote "...editors have been community banned from Wikipedia for considerably less disruptive activity than that demonstrated here." The ban proposed by Ivanvector seems like a sensible intermediate step to try. If Godsy can't keep away from Lpac's edits in draftspace, then Godsy shouldn't edit draftspace (and related areas). Leviv ich 04:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you for the considerable effort taken User:Levivich to pull that all together. This response [466] gives me no comfort that they will abide by the IBAN for it critiques my editing and suggests wrongly I'm the only user moving WP:STALE userpages. If I'm the allegedly the only person doing something why exactly is he "monitoring" with a view to "remedy" my actions when he is IBANed from me? Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Per broad consensus vide most of the comments above, I have unblocked Godsy and told him to use common sense in not undertaking edits that seem to be gaming the i'ban terms. Lourdes 15:23, 18 February 2019 (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.

Classic Buck$

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.

---

Classic Buck$ (talk · contribs) - Legal threat - Special:Diff/884390732. Cabayi (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Fish+Karate 09:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Fish and karate, he's socking now. Cabayi (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Target article semi-protected for 3 days. Fish+Karate 10:05, 21 February 2019 (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.

Cristina neagu

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.

---

Cristina neagu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last warning at [467] (13 February 2019). Then Tgeorgescu is a very difficult person it seems, not just a reporter, but also a Christian interested in Masturbation, pornography and is supporting some of the sins of the Decalogue. Basically a freak, but that's just my opinion. at [468] (18 February 2019). And Yes, you are poisoned by some non-biblical ideologies but your hatred is gonna bring you down. at [469] (same date, for some reason misspelled as 16 February 2019). A problem of WP:NOTKINDERGARTEN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to be sure: in at least one of the messages she discussed the TBAN she just received. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, User:Cristina neagu received a 6-months topic ban from Romania and Romanians at AE just yesterday (see here.) I would characterize the two comments cited above as WP:NPA violations. I believe a block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree and have blocked for personal attacks. My block is strictly regarding the personal attack, and is unrelated to any topic ban, lack thereof, or for any other reason. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Huh, I didn't even really notice this among all the other ranting, even though it was on my talk page. I also believe a NPA block would be appropriate. Sandstein 19:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Was just reading over this, and I endorse the block too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2019 (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 required - User:Hahamay2018

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.

---

Hahamay2018 (talk · contribs) repeatedly adding political crap to Democrats and Veterans, before warning [470], warning [471], after warning [472] [473]. Not here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

clearly not here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(Reply after close) User blocked, copyright violations purged. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Redux - page protection needed

Democrats and Veterans needs protecting. Our Democrats and Veterans friend now claims ownership. [474] --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock?Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Both  Done already. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:00, 21 February 2019 (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.

Nonononocat

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.

---

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

This user doesn't edit much, but pops up every now and then to make WP:FRINGE edits, with a particular agenda against Quackwatch. Example: tendentious and redacted pro-homeopathy content, removes criticism of the Bates Method, a pseudoscientific optical throery; whitewashing Gary Null's diploma mill degree, repeated here.

I think a topic ban from fringe medical topics is in order. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I am editing to bring pages in line with Wikipedia's stated rules. The edits in question involve removing information not found in the sources cited in a BLP. I was under the impression we had rules involving accurately sourcing information regarding living persons, even if they're "fringe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonononocat (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Hence the fact that virtually every post on your talk page is a warning or a discretionary sanctions notification, and virtually every edit you have made was immediately reverted. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• WP:SOCK: Now we have a New Jersey IP 76.116.197.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) edit-warring on the page. Note that both the IP and Nonononocat have edited NJ local topic pages (Kyrie Irving, St. Joseph High School (Metuchen, New Jersey); Gill St. Bernard's School, St. Matthews Baptist Church). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Don’t think we should be linking an IP to a username per WP:OUT. I warned the IP on copyvio’s. Check to see if I got them all please. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with revewiewing the on-wiki behaviours of a named account and an IP and coming to the conclusion that the accounts are related. That type of deduction forms the majority of non-CU requests at SPI.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I do not agree with JzG that a TBAN is in order. I did find one instance of whitewashing, but the other dif's I find unconvincing. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2019 (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:ATX-NL

• ATX-NL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hedy d'Ancona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Marcel van Dam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have reason to believe User:ATX-NL may be vandalizing Wikipedia. This editor has been active since November 2010, and has made 10,000+ edits, mostly related to Dutch politicians. On January 30th, I became aware of ATX-NL's presence on Wikipedia when I noticed two of their edits (Special:Diff/880930655 and Special:Diff/880938228) of Marcel van Dam. The former modified various dates, without citing sources. I tagged the article with {{Unreferenced}}. On February 13th, I noticed the editor changed (Special:Diff/882962904) the year in which Hedy d'Ancona was awarded an order, from 1994 to 1982. I could not find a source for 1982, while I can find many for 1994. This is why, on February 13th, I asked the editor for their source. The editor did not respond, but continued editing Wikipedia. On February 15th, I pointed to WP:COMMUNICATE and asked once more for their source. More recently I noticed that, on February 17th, another editor has posted on ATX-NL's Talk page asking for clarification, and also hasn't gotten a response, while ATX-NL continues editing Wikipedia. This is when I started looking at the rest of the editor's Talk page, and noticed this and a clear warning by User:Boleyn, and several more (User talk:ATX-NL#Source request, User talk:ATX-NL#Source request (2), User talk:ATX-NL#Source request (3), User talk:ATX-NL#Source request (4), User talk:ATX-NL#Source request (5), User talk:ATX-NL#Source request (6), User talk:ATX-NL#Source request (7)) from User:Robotje (not a bot). ATX-NL last edited their own Talk page in September 2012. ATX-NL did not respond on my Talk page, nor on the Talk page of User:Anomalous+0. I have contacted Kanselarij.nl, the official website about Dutch orders, and they've confirmed via e-mail that Hedy d'Ancona received her order in 1994. (In Dutch: "Dank voor uw bericht. Mevrouw H. d’Ancona is in oktober 1994 onderscheiden als Ridder in de Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw. Als het goed is zou dit zou ook te vinden moeten zijn in de Staatscourant.") I've looked at other edits by ATX-NL, and I see a problematic pattern. This is an editor that does not communicate, does not use sources, and adds inaccurate content either by replacing facts with fiction, or by adding false data. Their edits are generally big, and appear to be - at least partially - constructive, but upon closer inspection, are not. New articles are created without sources. Existing articles are edited as such: existing content is moved around, unsourced material is added to infoboxes and decoration sections, predecessors, successors, terms and other years are randomly modified, and some constructive changes are made to conceal the vandalism. This editor should be stopped, because of WP:VANDAL and ignoring WP:V, WP:EP, WP:ENGAGE, etc. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

At a quick glance I think someone proficient in Dutch (Category:User nl) should try contacting the user on Dutch Wikipedia, where they seem to respond to messages pretty consistently. They haven't edited their enwiki talk page in seven years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe (or maybe not, which I would understand because my wife hates being defined by her birth nationality) User:Drmies would like to take a look at this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I looked at the Van Dam edits. I'll have a look at the Hedy d'Ancona edit in a minute. ATX-NL really isn't all that responsive on the Dutch wiki: they have a talk page full of notes, and their last response was from July last year. The one before that, August 2017. That's like two or three talk page edits in the last one hundred. In the last note they apologized and cited their autism.

  The comments there are very much like the ones here: unsourced changes, for the most part. So, I don't want to get too far ahead, but we have a serious lack of communication, or however that quote went. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I just checked the first two source requests I added on his talk page in June 2018 (Source request - concerning Jaime Saleh & Source request (2) - concerning Hans Wiegel). No reply at all but also the information that seems to be incorrectly added by him in the articles is still there. So he not only failed to give a source or explanation, he also did not fix the issue in the articles. Somebody wrote yesterday above in the discussion about him "... some constructive changes are made to conceal the vandalism ..." I don't think he is on porpuse hiding vandalism, but it is obvious to me he doesn't care about correcting issues that are most likely mistakes made by him in the articles. This is hurting the encylopedia even if the mistakes were not made on porpuse. - Robotje (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I left a warning for User:ATX-NL and hope they will respond. Failure to communicate and making unsourced changes are both blockable if they go on long enough. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)