Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991

Draft:Will Lenney

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 ran across the draft Draft:Will Lenney today while WP:AFC work. I tagged it as {{db-attack}}, and ~1.5 hours later it was deleted. I then noticed that it has been deleted three times in the last year as an attack page, including this time. Along with this, there's been four revdels as well. I think it's time this draft was salted. Would an administrator please step in and protect the draft against creation? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Strand

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.

---

Strand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-standing but newly-active editor who began edit-warring on Pink triangle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). After a 24-hour block for NPA violations (against me, among others), they have expressed an inability to understand Wikipedia rules (for example), and asked to be blocked for a week while they recover from being "triggered" by participating in discussion. They have been advised how to formally requested that, but they have not done so. Instead they have resumed edit-warring, while also repeating the request to be blocked, as if trying to force the imposition of a block. I support that request... but would suggest that the block be substantially longer. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

JasonAQuest is correct. My anxiety was recently triggered by the phrase homosexual men being used to describe trans women, and there is no way I can conduct a reasonable conversation regarding this matter. Please block me, because Jason won’t talk to me, and has reverted many of my changes with what I read as a condescending and dismissive approach to my contributions. I would benefit from being unable to improve Wikipedia during the next week. 🏳️‍🌈Strand (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)🏳️‍🌈

(edit conflict) I support a longer block also. Strand is just making more work for commited editors. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

They don't seem interesting in providing sources or participating in discussion to obtain consensus, just complaining about intolerance due to unsourced changes like [1] being reverted. There may be some merit in some of their changes, but this seems to be WP:NOTHERE and a waste of time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy this is complicated. I think, Strand is a textbook example of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and sadly probably WP:NOTHERE but I also entirely understand where they're coming from. A lot of Wikipedia content is kind of accidentally hostile to transpeople, in part because of the destruction of literature which was perpetrated by the Nazis. Considering that, I can imagine the apparent invisibility of transpeople in articles that are at the intersection of the Nazis and their treatment of queer people would be a ... difficult sore point. Considering Strand has been inactive for a long period of time I might suggest if they're willing to accept mentorship from someone with experience editing LGBTQ articles that might be an appropriate recourse rather than just indeffing them. But it might also be advisable for them to start by working on parts of Wikipedia which won't be quite as likely to bring up trauma for them. Though I'm sympathetic for their desire for exposure therapy, Wikipedia isn't designed to be someone's therapeutic tool. Simonm223 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank You for your civility Simon M. Like I’ve explained elsewhere, this trigger was a surprise for me. I understand how and why I behaved badly, and believe that the most constructive approach to dealing with the conflict I started is to ban me. Not because I have bad intent, but because I know I have poor impulse control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talk • contribs) 01:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

when I was first banned, it was for a day, and somebody suggested a permaban. I just need a few more days to not be allowed to edit this particular troubling content. Y’all believe in cool off periods. Cool me off. 😎 ❄️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talk • contribs) 01:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Strand: Just for your information, we don't. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Forced, no. Self-requested, maybe. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

They seem to be moving on to straight-up vandalism. I'd recommend an indef, with an unblock only upon a promise of good behavior. They might claim that an oppressive cabal blocked them, but it's clearly their own behavior and desire that lead to this block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Or if not, ECP Pink triangle? "Disruptive editing from auto-confirmed accounts" sums this up pretty well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Protection shouldn't be necessary when only one editor is the problem. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 06:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

"Stop me before I do it again" is a cop-out. You need to learn to cool yourself off, and you aren't going to learn that from a week or two off Wikipedia. You didn't simply lose your temper because you were upset. You called me a "nazi sympathizer", then insisted that you couldn't see how that was a personal attack. Then you pull this no-actually-I'm-the-victim-here schtick, posting boilerplate accusing others of being uncivil to you.[2][3] That suggests a deeper problem with understanding the norms of this project, and it may prevent you from contributing constructively to it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the inflammatory language. I’ve attempted to engage in dialog, but have been ignored. Please ban me, i do not want to engage in personal attacks, but cannot engage in a constructive conversation with these editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe that this conflict did not start with a tone of civility when my contributions were dismissed. Other than ask for people to be specific rather than dismissive in their feedback, I did nothing to encourage civility from thereon out. Will you work with me to find language which is more queer and trans inclusive? Or will you continue to ignore the talk page and revert my changes. Strand (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The subject editor came to the dispute resolution noticeboard asking why they had had their talk page access revoked while they were blocked. That isn't what DRN is for, and the request was closed. Now the user requests that they be blocked to avoid being triggered. Hey: Nazism really was that bad, but we have to be able to be civil in reading and writing about a movement that was worse than uncivil. I think that this editor is lost and is forum shopping, but without a cause. I suggest that a competency indefinite block should be considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• When an editor starts blathering about "neuro-atypicality" (here) and "triggers" (above) and "Nazis" it's time to read: pain in the ass. Contrast this with another thread, coincidentally on this very board this very day, in which someone in a passing outburst referred to Wikipedia's "anti-quack gestapo" (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Farang Rak Tham calling users "gestapo"). EEng 05:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

you know whats a real pain in the ass? queer and trans erasure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talk • contribs) 06:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that way, but being non-neurotypical is not an excuse. Or shouldn't be. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 06:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strand is now trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS through page creations: Queer erasure. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

yes. this is the conversation others will not have with me because i was inflammatory in drawing attention to the erasure of trans and queer people. Be bold. if i'd worked with the editor to cite sources, roadblock after roadblock would have been thrown up, so as to make it harder to include trans and queer people, and now the pink triangle page includes trans women and other queer people. it may not fix it forever, but broken windows get fixed. Strand (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that topic should have an article? ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 07:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ekips39: The point is that the editor is using the examples section to continue making their point about the Pink triangle. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah on second thought my comment wasn't useful. I did get your point. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 07:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with others that an indef may be a good idea. This person is here to promote a point of view and believes that those who disagree are bigots and "Nazi sympathizers" [4] [5] -- not a good mindset. The removal of trans women from the intro of Pink triangle [6] [7] also seems rather "pointy". I'm also disturbed by the apparent claim that "homosexual men" is a Nazi social construct [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] but that might just be my interpretation. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 07:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've implemented the self-requested block with some advice for the user, namely not to continue editing here if they can't remain calm and abide by our rules. The user is apparently in a state of extreme stress and feels that they need a week-long block to de-escalate that stress, and I don't see anything wrong with providing that. Personally, I think we can reassess their behavior going forward after their block expires, and should they decide to continue editing, but I'm not convinced that they're out of ROPE at this point. Swarm ♠ 07:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Civility complaint against user Drmies

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

---

I would like to formally complain about several of the edits of the user @Drmies:. I see several examples of swearing at other users, using otherwise demeaning language, demoralizing and/or patronizing people who may in fact be good faith editors who are new to Wikipedia, and generally exhibiting conflict-inducing behavior that would be upsetting for the average new user to read and is not conducive to building an encyclopedia.

Below are some examples I have found of edit summaries displaying a rude, dismissive attitude; please examine carefully his edit descriptions, some of which he uses to swear at other users (at one point flatly telling a user to "fuck off"). Some of them may be relatively innocuous and may be me misunderstanding, but several of the edits are clearly inappropriate. I'm starting to see a pattern of inappropriate behavior through lack of civility.

For the sake of disclosure, I personally encountered this user when he began commenting on an ANI post I had made. It was probably not the right thing to do for me to make an ANI post at the time, but it seemed like what I was supposed to do, and one of Wiki's policies is supposedly to be "bold". I felt that this user was incredibly rude towards me for making the post (which I openly stated on the page) in the way that he commented on my post, telling me (at least twice) that I was "wasting people's time", saying "[Y]ou have contributed very little that I can tell, except that you raised the temperature and are wasting our time, you and that other editor both--not to mention all the other right-wing activists...", and he eventually accusing me of being a single-purpose account. I was personally offended enough by this person's rudeness that I stopped editing for at least a week and wasn't sure I wanted to start again. Here is a link to that discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=853786883#Repeated_BLP_&_consensus_violations_by_Abecedare

Overall, this person seems to have an attitude problem in dealing with other users. Drmies has apparently forgotten that WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, which is something I would think an administrator should have a heightened awareness of. I suggest that he be reminded of civility or be warned that failure to abide by WP:CIVIL may result in the loss of his mop.

I invite anyone to review the edit summaries which I have linked below.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Las_Vegas_shooting&oldid=856428861
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Las_Vegas_shooting&oldid=856429673
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indiana_Jones&oldid=856552644
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Cox_(author)&oldid=856423189
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judy_Ward&oldid=856405696
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duncan_D._Hunter&oldid=856118869
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Notoriousthug69&oldid=855665475
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1936_LSU_Tigers_football_team&oldid=855523216
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Coulter&oldid=855517778
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruce_Ohr&oldid=855411291
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:89.40.124.99&oldid=854833580
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yo-yo&oldid=854829283
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Get-rich-quick_scheme&oldid=854646533
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1&oldid=854604839
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adrian_C._Wilcox_High_School&oldid=854260328
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Bledel&oldid=854107280
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khattar_(clan)&diff=prev&oldid=853901381
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Lee_(Tennessee_politician)&oldid=853620155
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helen_Mirren&oldid=853045082

P.S. I was advised to post this here; I posted at the teahouse first and was told that this is the correct forum.

Ikjbagl (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read the guidance at the top of this page first. It is essential that you inform Drmies on his talk page, that a discussion is taking place here. Use the template {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ Make a new section on their talk page for the purpose. Thank you. Irondome (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Irondome: Thank you for your notice/reminder. I have done so. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Ikjbagl: for future reference, "be bold" means don't be afraid to change articles if you think you can improve them, not boldly report others at ANI. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For future reference, if you're trying to discuss a user's edit summaries, it's more helpful to link to the diff rather than the revision. That said, having looked through these... there's not much there. Drmies is definitely blunt and I've seen him push the boundaries of civility in the past, but the examples you've given are unconvincing... They include a diff where he strikes his own comment to say well, I am too old to be digging through eight months of diffs, so whatever (can one be uncivil to themselves?) or diffs where he says clearly unencyclopedic content is more appropriate for Facebook than for Wikipedia is not going to end in a civility reminder. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not a single one of these examples comes close to being a problem-- oh the one where Drmies says "Fuck off" (or whatever it was, I'm not going through them again to get the exact quote} is edgy, but that's about it. Calling a dumb edit "dumb" is blunt, but truthful. Saying the writing in a contribution is poor -- the same. Inviting non-encyclopedic material to go to Facebook is apt. As for this complaint -- like Oakland, there's no there there. (Any complaints from Oaklandites -- Oaklanders? -- should go to Gertrude Stein and not me.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Oliwier Duracz

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.

---

Oliwier Duracz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A report on a user that is a bit too complicated for AIV. This user created Plush and the Freshies (which appears to be a hoax) and other recent edits were either vandalism ([13]), unsourced ([14]), or just bizarre ([15]). They also have a bunch of edits to football rosters, some of which may be OK, but I'm very skeptical of [16]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked indef for vandalism. I don't think this user's role as one of the many people modifying sports tables without providing sources mitigates the blatant vandalism, and given that I can find vandalism even in that area of their involvement, I'm skeptical as to whether those edits can be even trusted. Swarm ♠ 05:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Ethnoreligiously aggressive editor with borderline religious racism

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.

---

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

The main case here is a new (a Single-purpose account) user. By his own confession, he is not here to build a wiki. The main article (practically his only field) is Syrians

1- Evidence for Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia:

• He admitted coming here after an argument on youtube regarding the article. I quote him: (and yeah i argued with someone months ago on you tube who made a mention to this article and i told him, and excuse my language, that "it's a garbage article run by Levantine Christian Aramean nationalist C*nts", and it's partly why i am here, lol...)

2- Evidence for being ethnically biased anti-Christian?:

• This user believe that Syrians are Arabs from Arabia (thats not our issue). In Academia, there are different opinions, most emphasize on the pre-Islamic pre-Arabian origin. When an editor, George Al-Shami recommended the name of a scholar, Philip Khuri Hitti, who is a Christian, and who supported the pre-Arabia origin, Nacirian said: "by people like Philip Hitti"... a Lebanese Maronite Christian??, no wonder. Its like, in his opinion, being a Maronite disqualify you or make you necessarily biased!

• Here, he asks me if Im a Christian and say: so you're a christian?, no offence, but i am really not surprised... I have no idea why he think its important, but he seems to believe that being a Christian means you are Anti-Arab or Anti-Muslim (Im not a Christian if anyone is interested). He is really not surprised that Im a Christian and he think that Im a Triggered Aramean nationalist and a Levantine Christian Aramean nationalist C*nt. So is this what Christians are for him?

3- Evidence for his battlefield mentality:

• He think that other editors have no business in the discussion between me and him. When editor George Al-Shami contributed, he told him: last but not least, intervening in this discussion and also on Doug Weller page, where no one asked your opinion

• He shows no possibility for a compromise that will give some of his edits, which are a direct SYNTH actually, a place in the article: he say: I told you that your watered down version of it will never be accepted by me. I will explain how he is directly committing SYNTH in another section of this report.

4- Evidence for being rude, disrespectful and aggressive:

• He mocked me, and made several accusations, but I dont care, I wont report these. However, his behaviour is like this toward anyone who doesnt agree with him; he scolded George Al-Shami and these are some quotes:

You clearly a POV Levantine nationalist, your editorial behaviors, siding with other Levantine nationalists, your username also proves my point.

Gosh... i am not even gonna waste my time arguing this horseshit opinion

• He use inappropriate language (you can already see in former sections of this report)

this is just another levantine nationalists garbage of an article

Pointing out obvious things is "aggressive"??. well them, i am probably am "aggressive".

5- I asked him many times to stop with personal insults and aggressiveness, to no avail. This has taken almost two months of wasting our time, and in the end, he wants a SYNTH to be approved represented with this:

A genetic study concluded that Muslims in the Arabic speaking world show genetic similarities due to the spread of religion. Nacirian wants to replace the word religion with the word Arab. He want to use the results of Lebanese Muslims, who are closer to Syrians than Lebanese Christians are, due to Arabian gene flow, to say that Syrian Muslims are also distant from Syrian Christians due to Arabian gene flow, which is not mentioned by the study.

Summary: I think this guy clearly showed that he is not here to build Wiki, just to defend his personal views, which he admitted here: and i am Syrian Arab Muslim, i care about my own people, i am not really interested in the Lebanese Christians.

That is why I think that he should be stopped from editing the article. I have to mention that currently, the consensus of editors that contributed to the article is against him. So, this report isnt to win an argument, but to stop this flow of insults and waste of time with an editor who came here to fight.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Uninvolved Editor Comment There's been a huge amount of back and forth between these two editors lately. Prior to their edits there seemed to be something of a consensus version, which I've reverted to. I'm not a geneticist and don't think I can help with adjudicating the findings of genetic ethnographies, but I think it prudent to wait until this dispute is sorted out before either editor makes major changes to the article. Simonm223 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you about changes. But this isnt a content dispute. This is about the behavior of the editor. Your note make it sound as if it is a content dispute, which might lead the admins to ignore the whole report! This isnt about an edit war, and no 3rr was ever broken.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223 please take a look at the original version of the Syrians article, so you can see the irony in this. Nacirian (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note: The following was originally threaded through the original post, instead of placed after. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The main case here is a new (a Single-purpose account) user. By his own confession, he is not here to build a wiki. The main article (practically his only field) is Syrians

excuse me for being a new user, but i have actually edited more than 5 articles.

the reason why i am not that active on other articles, is that i am trying to finish one article after another, not jumb in between.

when we reach a consensus on the Syrians article, i will shift my attention to other articles.

PS: he accused me of being "ethno-religious biased" when i was literally in between 5 to 10 edits... and there was no hint of that other than me arguing unsourced SYNTH additions, which hilariously is now removed in the modern version. Nacirian (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

1- Evidence for Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia: *He admitted coming here after an argument on youtube regarding the article. I quote him: (and yeah i argued with someone months ago on you tube who made a mention to this article and i told him, and excuse my language, that "it's a garbage article run by Levantine Christian Aramean nationalist C*nts", and it's partly why i am here, lol...)

you wanted to know about it, so i quoted the argument.

BTW, it's "partly why i am here". Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

2- Evidence for being ethnically biased anti-Christian?: *This user believe that Syrians are Arabs from Arabia (thats not our issue). In Academia, there are different opinions, most emphasize on the pre-Islamic pre-Arabian origin. When an editor, George Al-Shami recommended the name of a scholar, Philip Khuri Hitti, who is a Christian, and who supported the pre-Arabia origin, Nacirian said: "by people like Philip Hitti"... a Lebanese Maronite Christian??, no wonder. Its like, in his opinion, being a Maronite disqualify you or make you necessarily biased!

"This user believe that Syrians are Arabs from Arabia".

putting words in my mouth.

you think Syrians are only "Levantine Semitic".

And i am trying to balance out the article. and people can clearly see an improvement in being more direct with the sources in the modern version, compared with the original one.

thanks to Doug and my intervention.

and bringing the opinion of a historian to a geneticist debate is obviously useless and unneeded.

taking the opinion of a Maronite on the subject of the arab identity is like taking the opinion of an Israeli on the subject of Palestinians, or taking the opinion of a Palestinian on the subject of Israelis, etc.

being cautious on the reliability of the sources isn't wrong, he might be right or wrong. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

*Here, he asks me if Im a Christian and say: so you're a christian?, no offence, but i am really not surprised... I have no idea why he think its important, but he seems to believe that being a Christian means you are Anti-Arab or Anti-Muslim (Im not a Christian if anyone is interested). He is really not surprised that Im a Christian and he think that Im a Triggered Aramean nationalist and a Levantine Christian Aramean nationalist C*nt. So is this what Christians are for him?

I was being sarcastic when i said "Triggered Aramean nationalist", and it was a reply to your sarcastic comment.

and i never called you a "Levantine Christian Aramean nationalist C*nt" on Wikipedia. i was quoting an argument on you tube about you. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

3- Evidence for his battlefield mentality: *He think that other editors have no business in the discussion between me and him. When editor George Al-Shami contributed, he told him: last but not least, intervening in this discussion and also on Doug Weller page, where no one asked your opinion

there's nothing wrong with him contributing to the argument on the Syrians talk page, but why on Doug Weller talk page? I clearly did not ask his opinion, neither did anyone. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

*He shows no possibility for a compromise that will give some of his edits, which are a direct SYNTH actually, a place in the article: he say: I told you that your watered down version of it will never be accepted by me. I will explain how he is directly committing SYNTH in another section of this report.

anyone can go to the history of the Syrian article, and see the true meaning of SYNTH. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

5- I asked him many time to stop with personal insults and aggressiveness, to no avail. This has taken almost two months of wasting our time, and in the end, he wants a SYNTH to be approved represented with this:

"This has taken almost two months".

don't forget that i was avoided for 54 days, the only time here wasted was mine. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A genetic study concluded that Muslims in the Arabic speaking world show genetic similarities due to the spread of religion. Nacirian wants to replace the word religion with the word Arab. He want to use the results of Lebanese Muslims, who are closer to Syrians than Lebanese Christians are, due to Arabian gene flow, to say that Syrian Muslims are also distant from Syrian Christians due to Arabian gene flow, which is not mentioned by the study.

the word arab, is literally impeded in the article, anyone can open the link and see for themselevs, or just take a look at the argument in the syrians talk page, or the history of the Syrians article, as i have provided every single statement with a directly quoted source. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this guy clearly showed that he is not here to build Wiki, just to defend his personal views, which he admitted here: and i am Syrian Arab Muslim, i care about my own people, i am not really interested in the Lebanese Christians.

I said i only care about my own people, the Syrian population, stop taking words out of context. I only told you that when you told me to go put the Lebanese genetics test to the Lebanese article, i would, but i don't care. Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That is why I think that he should be stopped from editing the article. I have to mention that currently, the consensus of editors that contributed to the article is against him. So, this report isnt to win an argument, but to stop this flow of insults and waste of time with an editor who came here to fight.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller actually agreed with me that the version of the article, before i started the discustion on the talk page, is clearly a SYNTH landmine.

and people can see a huge difference between the pre-discustion verison of the article, and the modern version.

talk about "SYNTH"... Nacirian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [17] Between Aug 18 and Aug 20 every edit is one of the two of you either introducing a new edit or removing the edits of the other. On August 19, you came very close to WP:3RR - and stopped just short. But an edit war isn't defined by the third revision - that's just a brightline for such behaviour. Two people repeatedly reverting each other over a weekend and never quite going over the brightline certainly might count. That's why I reverted back to the version by George Al-Shami - who had previously reverted to the version by Doug Weller - who had previously reverted to the version by יניב הורון - IE: A consensus version. Simonm223 (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This consensus version was dirsupted in 18 Aug with a huge undiscussed edit that I reverted twice then we went to the talk page. So, you did what I did. My later edits were attempting to implement Nacirian's desired edits. I think you need to read the full discussion on the talk page and see the edits. Your stance now is hasty and not based on the full image.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

the "undiscussed edit" came after the first "undiscussed" "without gaining a consensus" edit. Nacirian (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm un-involved in this dispute. I went to the page because I do have a serious concern about racism, and often keep an eye on pages where racism might become a problem, and what I saw was... a complete mess. I certainly don't dispute that quite a few things were said by Nacirian that were completely beyond the pale. But you also said some questionable things on talk. And the mess that last discussion is in makes it very hard for me to get a sense of the chronology of that argument. As for consensus on talk?I had to go back to August 4 to find a substantive edit to the talk page that wasn't one of the two of you. I don't feel comfortable or qualified choosing a side in this debate and sincerely hope that the three editors I mentioned in my previous comment can weigh in with their perspective on this mess. But honestly? That talk page is almost impossible to read at this point. So if my revert restored it largely to your version, that's fine. But please just keep it that way until this mess is sorted out.

The fact is that you really do seem to have been edit-warring and here I'm going to talk as somebody who was there. Because the time I let myself get dragged into a protracted edit war I was pretty much certain I was on the side of the angels. And, just like in this case, the involved editors stayed just this line of WP:3RR for a long time before it eventually devolved into general sanctions, all kinds of unpleasantness and me burning out bad enough that even though I hadn't pulled any bans or blocks I took a 2 year break from Wikipedia and voluntarily walked away from those articles entirely. I'm not suggesting you should do that. But I am suggesting that it would be probably for the best to maintain what appears, from the article edit history, to be a consensus version until the other participants, who have largely been silent on this article for the last two weeks, had a chance to weigh in. Simonm223 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 i agree with your action, a consensus needs to be reached before anyone can go ahead and edit or rewrite the article. Nacirian (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223, I understand your argument, but my objection is that this report isnt about edit wars, or the content of the article. I dont want the admins to refer me to the edit war notice-board, or a content dispute one, because thats not what Im complaining about. This report is about his behavior and words and reason to be here. Thats why I made this report. (Just to clear today's edits: He asked for a change in the History section and I made that change).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

there's nothing wrong with pointing out obvious things.

after all, you were the one who started "pointing fingers".([18] Nacirian (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nacirian Can you please indent your comments correctly? Simonm223 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I've notified the three editors I referenced previously as creators of a consensus version of this article and asked for them to comment here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I would point out that I tried to engage Nacirian in a constructive dialogue over here, and this is how he responded; in a very vile manner, unbefitting of any Wiki editor, newbie or experienced, I don't think he should get off the hook for being that uncivil. He has employed the C word on editors who he has disagreed with, even though they have employed reputable scholarly sources.

Secondly, Nacirian has shown really bad faith by questioning a scholarly source's research based on their religion. When I mentioned Philip Hitti, who single-handedly built the Near East department at Princeton University, was fluent in Syriac and Hebrew, and authored many books on the history of Syria; he totally shrugged off and discounted Hitti's impressive scholarly work based on the fact that Hitti was Christian. This very problematic behavior is further displayed when he inquires whether Attar is Christian or not. Therefore for Nacirian academic credibility is based on one's faith.

As to the disagreement between Attar and Nacirian, I think Attar's well-rated work on Wikipedia, such as the [article] Ebla, speaks for itself (he has a number of GA Wiki articles under his belt). In one instance Attar says "The paragraph you are using is saying: religion. You cant replace it with Arab if you want it to match the source."; I concur, changing that one word from "religion" to "Arab" totally changes the meaning.

Perhaps, if the contested passages are numbered in an organized fashion with the two different versions being voted on by involved and uninvolved editors, would that help? George Al-Shami (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh look!, it's George and he's siding with Attar.

I did not expect that at all!.

Firstly, what's wrong with my reply??, i don't see it as "vile".

That article, since 2014, has been only a "Levantine Nationalist Garbage/Crap/Agenda of an article", and i stand by that statement.

I am not gonna be PC about it.

Again, if you don't believe me, just look at the pre-discussion version of the article and try to compare it with the modern one.

I have never "employed the C word" on any editors, i don't know what you mean by the "C Word".

"even though they have employed reputable scholarly sources.", baseless.

Secondly, I have questioned the usage of a source by a maronite historian in an argument on genetics.

Being cautious on the reliability of the sources isn't wrong, biasedness is a thing.

His religion doesn't matter, if you haven't noticed, I've quoted back to you Irfan Shahîd, who is a Palestinian Christian.

So, my "academic credibility" is not "based on one's faith".

As for the rest of your opinionated statement on the argument between me and Attar, just proves my point that you will only take the side of Attar in any argument.

You're using the same "illogical/persuasive/time wasting" reason to counter my directly sourced material.

His work on one article doesn't excuse the fact that "the Syrians" article, is nothing more than a "SYNTH" Landmine. Nacirian (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Non-Admin Comment At this point it seems unlikely that either of the other two editors who had recent prior involvement in the page are likely to respond to this. Suggestion - although it seems both parties engaged in edit warring behaviour, Attar-Aram syria has been willing to co-operate with other editors and, when asked nicely, ceased edit-warring behaviour pending a solution to the dispute here. Furthermore, they have a pretty solid history of constructive participation in Wikipedia. On the other hand Nacirian has, on this thread, shown pretty incivil behaviour, and his claims not to have used particularly foul language with regard to editors on this page hangs on the weak defense that he replaced a vowel with an * and was referring to things he said about the users on Youtube, though he was making said reference on a Wikipedia talk page. And he persists in his argument that there's some sort of Levantine Christian cabal at work here, despite the evidence to the contrary, which is pretty much religious discrimination. Absent any further feedback from other editors at the page, it does seem pretty clear that Nacirian is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Nacirian is a suck puppet of a long term abuse indefinitely blocked user: it has been confirmed that Nacirian is related to the blocked vandal Ehsan iq. This is the result of the user check.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I am rather sure the term is sock puppet, rather than suck puppet. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Hyacinth and math articles/categories

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 requesting a TBAN of Hyacinth (talk · contribs) from mathematics articles (including categories). This has been long overdue, but the last straw for me is a series of WP:POINTy edits (diffs: [19], [20], [21], [22]) speculating on the etymology of the term, or trying to claim that it's unknown. There's possible gaming of 3RR to leave something in, rather than starting a discussion on the talk page here. There were some older problems at this article from them too: making inappropriate incoming redirects, adding incorrect information due to inability to read a technical sourcce, etc.

More recently, there was a mess at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 7#Category:Square roots, where Hyacinth used the admin tools to just delete the category rather than letting the discussion play out, not notifying the discussion of his actions, and generally causing a headache over the whole thing. I brought this up at User talk:Hyacinth#Admin tools, and don't feel that he ever really addressed my concerns. More about questionable math stuff specifically, there was also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 21#graphs and the older discussion referenced therein.

I've tried to keep this reasonably brief, but I can supply more detail if requested. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems very excessive for an argument at a page where a disambiguating hatnote (to Plug (jewellery) as an earring from Hawaii) seems plausible, and there's no discussion on the talk page. I don't know what was in the deleted categories, but even if it was problematic, I don't see why a TBAN from math (rather than a remedy regarding categories) would be helpful there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems that your priority should be on improving the Hawaiian earring article, and all of Wikipedia. You have started or participated no discussions on Talk:Hawaiian earring, ever, while I have. Hyacinth (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC) It seems best that we leave each other be, if our goals are both to help Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You're seriously complaining about those utterly innocuous edits, while casually mentioning misuse of the administrator tools as an afterthought? An admin can be desysopped for performing an out-of-process deletion, and then blatantly refusing to explain their rationale, as they apparently did here. How is that not what you came to AN/I for, but you're drawing the line with those Hawaiian Earring edits? Those edits are nowhere near the level of a TBAN from the subject, and the refusal to explain admin actions, while concerning in its own right, has no relevance to the validity of the proposed TBAN. This report seems frivolous, especially given the editor it's being lodged against. You need to make a serious case establishing a severe or very long-term pattern of behavior in order for something like this to be taken seriously. Swarm ♠ 09:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Lasha-george: adding unsourced information and failure to communicate

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.

---

Lasha-george (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, with the total contribution of 22 edits, recently took an interest in Tbilisi and started to change the foundation date in the infobox [23], [24], [25], without leaving any edit summaries. The problem is their additions are unsourced (to be honest, the current date is unsourced either, but at least it is shown as approximate). After their third attempt I left them a talk page message, explaining that WP:V is a fundamental policy [26]. Their response was immediate and looked like this - the fourth robot-like revert. I would have blocked myself, and I would block indef per WP:CIR, but I am obviously involved. Technically, they did not overstep 3RR, as their four edits are within two days.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I have reverted this users' latest unsourced edit, and left them a uw-editsummery template, as it does not appear that they were ever told about edit summaries. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 04:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Myra or someone doesn't like some academic presses

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.

---

• Myra or someone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Janet Gaynor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Richard Deacon (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Spring Byington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Myra or someone: keeps editing articles on actors such as Janet Gaynor, Richard Deacon (actor), etc. to remove assertions about the subjects' sexuality. Her argument is that New York University Press, McFarland & Company and the University Press of Mississippi, inter alia, are not reliable sources but vanity presses! She's gone into full-blown edit war territory with the Deacon article, but this is an ongoing pattern with her. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it is clear they are not here (or at least not there). But this should really be an edit war complaint.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

With the Deacon article, it could go to WP:AN3. I don't think the university press issue should go to WP:RSN, so the question is, is it good-faith misunderstanding of the presses, or is it intentional disruption? —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked x 48 hrs for disruptive editing. This is a pattern of behavior and they have been warned repeatedly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a good block. The remarks about the university presses are ludicrous. I notice with concern that this editor appears to be obsessed with Dorothy Kilgallen, long a magnet for conspiracy theorists. This editor added Kilgallen conspiracy theory content to November 1965 and John Erick Dowdle. Given the style of editing and in particular, the lengthy, argumentative edit summaries, I suspect that this may be another account for an editor who was active on Kilgallen a few years ago. Any further disruption should lead to a much longer block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I have suspected this editor of being a sock from the first moment I ran into them at Dorothy Kilgallen, but CU couldn't find anything conclusive. In any event, barring a dramatic shift in their behavior, they are not going to be around for long. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User FinalXFantasy

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.

---

FinalXFantasy (talk · contribs)

He is deleting information out of Politican infobox. Here[27], here[28], here[29] just a few examples. I reverted these and posted[30] a warning to his talk page. He removed[31] the notice and reverted all of my reversions. With the only explanation being 'not needed'.[32] Prior offices are noted in politician infoboxes. Can some administrator please give this editor a serious warning?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. They can be unblocked just as soon as they indicate that they understand the issues and policies at hand and will guarantee that they do not continue. Swarm ♠ 04:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

[RESOLVED] Is any admin awake?

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

---

Please revoke TP access at blocked VOA User talk:Ойрат Арена, posting the mainpage on his TP. Softlavender (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Please do not take this as confirmation, however, that I am awake. Fish+Karate 13:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Jaydip2078

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

---

This user has received final warnings for vandalism in March, May and June, but has never been blocked, and they just committed more vandalism[33] that was very similar to past vandalism[34]. I don't think I should report at AIV for vandalism after final warning since the last warning was 2.5 months ago, and I am uncomfortable calling them a VOA since I can't tell weather their unsourced changes to sports articles were made in good faith, but I don't want to warn them again and make it look like they can wait a month and vandalize again. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed their edits and they are WP:NOTHERE it seems. Edits were mostly vandalism, removing sourced material or falsifying info on pages. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Righting Great Wrongs? by User:worldnuse

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.

---

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

This is a report that User:worldnuse is trying to use Wikipedia to publicize their views that the US legal system and Supreme Court are corrupt. Their contributions are as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Worldnuse These include proposed use of their sandbox as a web host, spamming comments into 2010 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and a questionable comment in In re.

This editor is not here to be constructive and needs an indefinite block.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Please check Special:Contributions/SouthAfrica1994

The edits by SouthAfrica1994, a now blocked sock, seem to range from probably useful to nonsensical, for at least the few I have sampled, but I'm afraid there may possibly be some actual as yet unrepaired damage to articles among the edits. Is there a mechanism for easily screening these edits? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm. Yeah. Well, reading glasses help... Drmies (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• I mean, not as far as I know. This looks fine to me. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yanela users

I've run across a number of editors with names starting with 2 digits and "Yanela", sometimes with additional text. I haven't run across a constructive edit from any of them, although one of them produced a rant about one of my edits which might have been constructive if I could figure out what it was saying. If some bot or database expert could produce a list of all such editors, we could see whether there was a constructive edit it the bunch. I'm sure most of them are the same editor — 24 reinstated one of 23's edits on an article in my watchlist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

If someone can produce a list, I'm willing to notify them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, this may work as a starting point. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Well User:9Yanelazulu was blocked indef [35] in June, so I suspect all of the others (that are obviously the same person) could be blocked as socks ... Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe User:DoRD would have an opinion on what to do, since they issued a checkuser block of User:Yanela zulu f back in April 2017. The grounds that led to that block might also apply to other accounts with Yanela in their name. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I blocked a few of them that were obviously disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no memory of that block, but I apparently found them during a check of an unrelated disruptive user. I blocked five accounts at the time. Other "yanela" accounts can be found here (with some false positives included). —DoRD (talk)​ 20:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Range block 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.

---

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

He has been socking around since at least 2015 (See SPI). The last CU sweep was conducted a few weeks ago,[36] but he's still actively trying to evade his block.

• 2601:40d:200:9cda:cde0:381a:728c:587f (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:40D:200:9CDA:B027:1065:6A1:A238 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:40d:200:9cda:9099:8245:72d8:2cbd (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:40d:200:9cda:8144:8908:1d63:1d7f (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Same geolocation, same editorial pattern, same target articles, same obsession with Azerbaijan/Iran/Turkey as the other known IP socks.[37]. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

2601:40D:200:9cda:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for one week. Note that IPv6 /64 ranges (where the first four hextets (?) are the same) can be assumed to be the same user, it's how the technology works. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

With cookie blocks now in place, I don't think it's necessary to do a /64 range block any more - a block on any one address within the range should effectively block them all, if I understand it correctly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Any savvy enough user can easily evade a cookie block (not saying more per WP:BEANS) so /64s are probably still useful to do; there's no reason not to Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

That's true. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

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

• Following up post-close: as I understand it, for purposes of administration, each /64 range ought to be considered to be the same sort of entity as one individual IPv4 address. As in, the /64 is assigned in its entirety to one user at one time, and so if you're going to block that user, you should block the entire /64 rather than one distinct address in the range. But, just like IPv4 addresses, the user assigned to that /64 a week ago might not be the same user assigned to it today. Also, the idea of cookie blocks is good but we should have named them something else: the instructions to evade a cookie block are right there in the name if a user is even kind of tech-savvy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah people are assigned /64 subnets. Actually, I wonder why we don't make IPv6 blocks automatically block the /64 range..agree with the point on the name of cookie blocks Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Long term edit warring at Lawton Chiles High School to add list of teachers with criminal offenses

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.

---

• Lawton Chiles High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per WP:CRIME and WP:BLP, the 'Faculty Misconduct' section ought to be rev/deleted. But page protection will be necessary, too. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Truthbot123 added it back. I smell a sock. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I just added PC protection. If anyone thinks we need to be more aggressive than that, be my guest. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I've softblocked Truthbot123 for being a bot username. It's also pretty obvious that it's the same user as 209.251.153.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which is probably the school's IP, in case anyone wants to be even more aggressive. Technically all of the negative material they added is sourced so I don't think it qualifies for revdeletion, but it all fails WP:BLP1E/WP:BLPCRIME/whatever, so it should not be added back. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have revdeleted the sections involved. Whilst some of them do pass BLPCRIME, some merely report arrests (not convictions), some are flagrantly obvious BLP violations (for example text that states one person has committed a sex crime is sourced to a newspaper article that merely says "... has been placed on administrative leave during an investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct..."), some are merely sourced to the school's internal discipline (which may not be a legal issue and certainly aren't legal convictions which they would need to be for such non-WELLKNOWN people), and at least one source is a dead link, leaving it a BLP violation. It is always better to err on the side of caution here. Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

IP suggesting that an author should sue an editor

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

---

See [38] "I don't know what is indenting and spacing, therefore, and very obviously for good faith persons, bad faith, and libelling is on your side. For any title, it is very difficult to find an editor. So that the multiplication of his books is an obvious proof of the widespread acceptance of his theories. His expertise is attested by his belonging to the International Association of Egyptologists. It is also attested by this article of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Davidovits#Sources So, calling his works fringe theories is mere defamatory libelling, and he should sue you in front of criminal courts." Note that Davidowits argues that the pyramids were built with limestone concrete blocks. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It might possibly be seen as relevant that User:JDavidovits was blocked in 2016 for making legal threats: see WP:ANI thread. [39] 81.154.7.26 (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I blocked them for a little while; this is just a huge waste of time. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks. I did a bit of research and this is definitely block evasion, so I've blocked them for a month. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I was threatened with "he should sue you in front of criminal courts"? I totally missed that. I guess all I saw was the trolling. That article has been on my watchlist for a while and if an anon from Paris returns to promote similar views, I will open an SPI for the blocked editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Jeremy Geffen

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 recently came across Jeremy Geffen where IPs were deleting sourced material about his sexual assault case. This case did happen, he did have a probation period where the charges were dropped to misdemeanours as well. I don't believe this violates our BLP policy; it is short, sourced, and factual. Upon further research, it looks like he (and people who work for him) are/were actively suppressing this information [40] and an IP just came onto my talk page saying I am killing his mother by allowing it to stay up [41]. This page needs to be protected. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4 - The article has been semi-protected. It looks like there's other concerns with the article text as well (possible copyright violations). Did you check to see if the content being removed wasn't copied and pasted from an external source? Just asking to make sure :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I did a quick google search and nothing directly the same came up (some were paraphrased, however, and I have changed the wording about his plea deal since I found a more reliable source). That is a good concern to raise Oshwah, especially since we are supposed to have good faith in people. I did not check the rest of the article, however, the IPs edit summaries that I was killing Geffen's mother (still waiting for the police to come knocking at my door) and other similar comments made it clear to me what their intentions were. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah Re-reading this I think you meant was I re-adding copied material instead of the IPs removing it because it was copied. Sorry, it's late where I am. Same answer as above anyways, a quick google search showed not much. 04:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) HickoryOughtShirt?4 - Cool, just making sure ;-). I wasn't trying to say that the removal of the content due to being a copyright violation was the user's intent; I was just making sure that this issue wasn't coincidentally over content that also had copyright violation issues :-). I've blocked the IPs and the user account for edit warring in addition to the page protection that was applied by Spencer. The fact that the edit warring was taking place using different IP addresses and a user account in that time frame is disruptive in itself and at the level where I felt it needed to be enforced and documented in block logs. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Film Fan

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. User:Film Fan continues with behaviour that has been brought to ANI before regarding page moves. This thread was raised a while ago about this very issue, which includes deliberate edits to stop a page from being moved back after he has moved a page, without discussion. That thread ended with Softlavender suggesting a site ban. FF was also placed under a 1RR, which is still in place, as at the end of Dec17. FF was once again brought to ANI in May 2018, with the closing notes stating "...there have been past problems getting through to this user, so if issues persist, they are likely out of rope". They know the process when it comes to page moves, and have been told in the past not to make ones that could be challenged. Along with the previous issues, and the deliberate edit to stop a page being moved back, this has gone past the point of just a one-off bit of WP:DE. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of this users previous issues, so I won't be commenting on them; however, the behavior displayed today at File:Disenchantment poster.png seems to be the very behavior that the community wished to avoid with this user in the past. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Nihlus 18:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week (escalation from previous block) for edit warring at the Disenchantment poster and editing disruptively to prevent move reversions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I see even their unblock request has a lovely personal attack ("...but I prefer to focus on content than peers, and I'm not a spiteful twat..."). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Noting for the record that Film Fan was indeffed in 2013 for "Long-term pattern of edit warring; no improvement in behaviour since coming off previous block". They were unblocked nearly a year later after they "made a commitment to change the behaviors that led to the block". They've been blocked numerous times for disruptive behavior since then, including edit warring and disruptively uploading. That's what the May 2018 report was for, and they were given a final warning by myself, stating that they will not be given any more rope should there be issues in the future. So, yeah, the fact that they combined those issues and are actually upload-warring as of today puts them in out-of-rope territory by itself, and that's not even what this thread is about. This thread is about disruptive page moving. Same situation there. They were reported for making an undiscussed contentious page move and warned against making an edit in order to prevent the page from being moved back. That was three years ago. He did it again a couple months later, and was blocked for it.[42] At this point it was noted that Film Fan seemed "allergic to collaboration" by one user and as observed above, Softlavender suggested a site ban if problems continue. Today, Film Fan continues to make undiscussed page moves and then games the system by editing the redirects to prevent them from being moved back.[43][44][45][46] Unacceptable. It's clear to me that Film Fan is either unable or unwilling to follow through with their endless promises to change. SarekOfVulcan has blocked for one week before I could get around to indeffing. That's fine, because I think we should make it formal anyway. Support site ban. Swarm ♠ 19:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban - As Swarm makes clear above, and as I have experienced myself, this editor's behavior has been a problem for quite some time, and they do not seem to be able to change. At this point, we're in net negative territory, and a site ban is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban This user has been given rope and then given more rope. Editing restrictions, blocks etc have made no difference to their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Their most recent unblock request (with its personal attack in the edit summary) is a perfect example of the problem. MarnetteD|Talk 22:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. That unblock request by itself probably should have resulted in an indefinite extension. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban - I myself ended up having more than one disagreement with this editor - Should never have been unblocked in the first place, Don't bother lifting it this time. –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I wrote this at ANI two years ago: "User has a block log a mile long, including an indef exactly two years ago, which was rescinded after 11 months because 'User has made a commitment to change the behaviors that led to the block', but he was re-blocked 5 months later for edit-warring. I think we may be looking at a site ban if problems continue." [47] I think a major problem is that admins have not continued to escalate the length of the user's blocks -- why is that? They went from an indef block to a 48-hour block the next time: [48]. If we had more consistent administration these issues might not continue so long and waste the community's time over and over. As it is, I'll support a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban for that unblock request alone. Not worth having on Wikipedia. --Tarage (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support a Site Ban - The block log speaks for itself. When a user has dug themselves into a hole, they can be buried in it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban Obviously. Also agree with Softlavender regarding admins having failed to check the editor's block log before each new block to make sure they aren't "resetting" anything. (And that's the AGF option; alternatively it could be either admins who "like" FF deliberately not giving him the escalating blocks for his benefit, or who "don't like" FF deliberately downplaying to avoid accusations of abuse of admin tools to push an agenda.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban A long history of disruption, and battleground behaviour. Not just a few blocks in the past, but a lot of them, including an indef one. Nothing has changed since then to suggest this editor is her to build an encyclopedia. Their unblock request doesn't help, including a personal attack. Also note that they edited as a sock during the last indef. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban The user's block log says it all ~AE (talk • contributions) 04:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban Unblock request was itself offensive enough for a longer block. Orientls (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Per the block log, and his unblock request, which shows that he can't take responsibility for his own actions. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 19:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. While the user has proven helpful more than a few times, they have also shown that they have no interest in working with other editors. – BoogerD (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban Given they committed to changing their behaviour in 2013 but has subsequently been reported and blocked numerous times, I'd say the community has been more than generous. Blackmane (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban, per WP:ROPE - the user has no interest in editing collaboratively, and their recent actions as linked above (I particularly dislike the null-editing of redirects, which is outright gaming of the system) shows their previous pledges of good behaviour were empty platitudes. Should have been banned a long time ago. Fish+Karate 08:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

• Oppose per WP:BATTLE. Peter James (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Huh? You think all the above editors are exhibiting BATTLEGROUND behavior towards FilmFan? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Marjdabi

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.

---

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

This user is edit-warring with multiple users on multiple pages [49] [50] [51] and appears to have ignored (but removed) my warning on their talk page. They've also threatened to report the people they're arguing with to an admin. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Significant sourced edits of mine were removed, I have not edit-warring with anybody. Several users cited their personal opinions into removing significant contribution. Article contributions are not decided by if a user who doesn't like it has the ability to remove it. All the sources are cited, and improvements. Marjdabi (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

What we have is a new younger editor just learning the ropes What is needed is some helpfull direction as to what is a reliable source (like no click bait news) and editor behaviour when it comes to editing.--Moxy (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

He is doing this on even more than the three pages mentioned above, and right now it appears that he just re-uploaded two images which had only minutes before been speedily deleted for apparent copyright violation. I think he needs more than "helpful direction", sincerely. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What am I doing exactly? Apparently User:2A1ZA doesn't appreciate the cited edits I've done. He has also told me o the talk that he is allowed remove edits he finds controversial. Well all the edits are cited bud, all from quality sources and the events are a significant part of the article whether you like those or not. The copyrighted images were not properly posted in the first time. They have now been replaced with the proper citation. Please stop disrupting my edits. Marjdabi (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not like some of your edits because they violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the way you approach controversy like you do for example here does not give me the impression that you intend to cooperate with other editors in good faith. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh please you are constantly reverting an edit I've made which is sourced and confirmed citing unimportant since yesterday. Stop removing it or I will have to open a discussion here in your name. Also stop referring to suicide bombers as self sacrificing act. Wikipedia is an unbiased encyclopedia. Stop removing my cited sourced and stop your edit war. Marjdabi (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Things seem to be getting out of hand fast....disagreements on many pages. Marjdabi could you slow down on the disputed edits and read over Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia #Discussion and consensus before more reverts...no need for you to be blocked....just need to understand some basics. Will post on your talk some more info like copyright policies.--Moxy (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not reverted any edits, User:2A1ZA has been reverting my quality edits because he finds them controversial, my edits and contributions are cited, User:2A1ZA seems to not appreciate them. I have made significant sourced contributions. He as also suggested that I change the name of a suicide bomber to, self-sacrificing act. Probably one of the reasons he is reverting my edits my completely removing them. On Wikipedia, we should not call suicide vest bombers "self sacrificing acts". This self sacrificing act was aimed at a Tank and troops for your instance. Marjdabi (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Judging from this Marjdabi's edits on Battle of Marj Dabiq,[52][53], with no attempt at discussion on the talk page, and when reverted by me on Battle of Marj Dabiq, reverts my edit on Fourth Crusade,[54] an article they have never edited before, I am not convinced this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. If said editor can not or will not learn proper etiquette to BRD, then perhaps a block is necessary. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What does that have to do with recent edits? And why are you stalking my edits? Marjdabi (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Marjdabi - it isn't "stalking". When someone's edit behaviour is challenged on ANI it is fairly standard practice to have a look at some of their other edits to see whether it is a blip or more standard behaviour. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Marjdabi also needs to understand WP:COPYRIGHT when it comes to images. All of their image uploads which they added to these articles have been deleted at Commons as copyright violations. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Marjdabi has made unilateral controversial edits to the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, Syrian Democratic Forces and Turkish military operation in Afrin articles claiming there is consensus on the Turkish military operation in Afrin talk page for using Turkish and Russian media sources where there is none. He then reverts the restoration of the articles that I and others have made. If one user reverts several other users more than three times is this considered to be edit warring? AntonSamuel (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Marjdabi is edit warring over multiple articles and has been warned. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

TonyMorris68

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.

---

TonyMorris68 started this thread: Talk:South African farm attacks#Is the Wikipedia article, South African Farm Attacks, devolving into an activist editor political racewar? which is probably exactly what you think it is from the title. This is part of a trend from this user, where TonyMorris68 accuses or implies that other editors are using racism to bludgeon the process and shut-down dissenting opinions, including me (User talk:Grayfell#To capitalize or not to capitalize words commonly used to describe racial groups?). This user's own reaction to obvious trolling seems over the top in the level offense at someone saying "Marxist swine", especially considering the editor agrees that everyone else is a "pro-Communist".

Looking at this editor's history after these red flags I found:

• TonyMorris68 has gone into similar wordiness to explain that lynched Jewish scapegoat Leo Frank's guilt wasn't overturned, and that there was a conspiracy theory that legitimizes his lynching. This is especially peculiar for someone who claims to be the grandchild of Holocaust survivors.
• Attempted to add "Dr." in front of David Duke's name (Duke's degree is from an unaccredited sham school).
• While typing this out, this editor has been aggressively re-adding a link to Duke's youtube channel I removed citing WP:ELMIN. This is part of a pattern of adding extremely questionable primary sources for white nationalists: Matthew F. Hale ("...including his mailing address in prison."); Alex Linder; National Alliance (United States); and maybe others.
• This edit introduced information about Matthew F. Hale which was not supported by any source, and altered the wording from "soliciting an undercover FBI informant to kill federal judge..." to "encouraging an undercover FBI informant to kill federal judge..." which is pretty clear whitewashing of a convicted neo-Nazi gang leader.

To me, this is overwhelming evidence that this editor is trying, and failing, to play a long con to use civil POV pushing to advance a white nationalist agenda, and should be blocked for WP:NOTHERE, etc. Grayfell (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Also editwarring to keep a link to a fansite in the article of white supremacist Matthew F. Hale - "[http://www.FreeMattHale.com Free Matt Hale]. Information about the trial and appeals of Matt Hale, including his mailing address in prison." and an archive of his white supremacist speeches. That might be a DS violation, as would the David Duke material above. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant to point out the irony of his accusing others of being political activists. Doug Weller talk 09:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well when we get bored of the far-right calling us commies and loony-liberals, we can always pop over to one of our many alt-med pseudo-science articles and get called fascist pill pushing capitalists instead. Edaham (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I noticed that everyone stopped providing reliable sources on the talk page in the last four days. While that's obviously a problem with such a topic, I think it's obvious who's the contentious editor participating in every dispute in the last four days. Thanks to Grayfell for opening this thread. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 10:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • He's trying to insert a website named after the old American Mercury which is now only a bigoted anti-semitic site.[55] to The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews and now he's accusing editors, specifically @Maunus, I am One of Many, and EvergreenFir: of being pro-Communist "racist anti-white marxist bigots" "neo-marxist commisars" at Talk:South African farm attacks#Is the Wikipedia article, South African Farm Attacks, devolving into an activist editor political racewar?. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

So WP:NOT_HERE then. Also in the brief exchanges this user has had on their talk page, they've demonstrated a reasonable knowledge of policy. Not a new user. Edaham (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've given him a 48-hour block as a stop-gap purely for the personal attacks, though I think it's clear that stronger measures are needed depending on the consensus here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:NOTHERE block

Tony Morris has been blocked for 48 hours. I propose he be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC).

• Support after going through the evidence presented here. I agree that this is an editor attempting to use civility to disguise their promotion of a white supremacist POV. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure they are using civility, in any way shape or form.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

However I must add that I am dubious about a block because (what looks like) they have the wrong POV. They have issues with civility and edit waring, so do many other sues who get a chance. I would rather (then) that we wait to see how they react to the 48 hour ban.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

True enough; I should have said "the appearance of collegial discussion", because you're right: they do descend into incivility quite frequently.

My problem isn't so much their "wrong POV" but with their "proven-wrong-and-generally-accepted-as-immoral-with-no-major-dissent POV". Just because everybody's got their own POV doesn't mean that all viewpoints are equal. There's nothing questionable or even necessarily subjective about recognizing that certain ideologies are demonstrably worse than others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Tony can go rail on against Wikipedia's "anti-White" and "pro-Communist" agenda on Rightpedia. Byeee. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support because of unambiguous battleground behavior with an extreme dose of tu quoque POV accusations. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly here to push a fringe pov into the encyclopedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support not here, and worth a check user. Doesn’t seem like a new user. Edaham (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll second the CU request EvergreenFir (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Just "running CheckUser" doesn't accomplish much, the operators need something to look for, like an account to compare to. If you have one in mind I'll look into it. But this account's almost two years old, it's unlikely that CU would be able to find anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support per WP:SNOW. Frankly, I'm surprised this is even being discussed. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. This user is only here to push his POV's onto the articles listed here, and also being uncivil to other editors. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 19:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per NOTHERE, I'd also support a CU check as to be blunt I call bullshit on them being a new user but either way NOTHERE applies. –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support I warned him a couple of times that he was pushing a white-nationalist agenda.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  If you indeffed because of this discussion, it has to run 24 hours. If you indeffed for some other excellent reason that was probably really easy to come up with, never mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  I didn't log it as a community ban, just as an admin action with a pointer to this discussion. I did it because this kind of person shouldn't be allowed to waste one more precious second of volunteer time, and I doubt any admin is going to undo it. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

One of these days, I really will get around to writing WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS so admins can just say "indeffed per WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS" when they take this rather laudable step. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

How about WP:IHATEILLINOISNAZIS instead? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

We already have an article on fucking Nazis. EEng 20:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Been watching this editor since the attempt to add "Dr" to David Duke. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Canvasing over list of cryptids

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:bloodofox posted this [[56]] over at WP:FTN. This is a far from neutrally worded statement and is a clear violation of wp:canvasing. When they were informed this was not neutral their response was this [[57]]. In addition over at the merge discussion they posted this [[58]], which only pings a few users involved in the last merge attempt (there may also be issue of badgering here, as a number of exasperated posts show [[59]] [[60]]. It is clear they have major issues over cryptozoolgy and I do not think that in this topic area they are either neutral, civil or cooperative. In fact they are tendentious to an extreme, and this may well be impacting (as can be seen from at least one talk page thread) on other eds ability to even edit pages.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my response on this topic. We're talking about deep fringe territory here (cryptozoology is a pseudoscience closely associated with Young Earth creationism and ufology) that has historically included off-site canvasing and threats to my person. I get that Slatersteven is, according to his own comments, (and evident in his actions), a big fan and potential proponent of this particular pseudoscience, but, of course, we don't build the site around the requests and whims of fringe proponents (or their "fans"), we stick to reliable, independent sources (eg. WP:FRIND). None of this remotely qualifies as canvasing and appears to be an attempt to muzzle me. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Slatersteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is generally an okay editor who can be helpful in certain contexts, but he also sometimes puts his foot in his mouth as he is doing here (diffs can be dug up if you're into that sort of wikilawyer nonsense). The notice at FTN is perfectly factual and not a violation whatsoever. I would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG, but I imagine that if sufficiently chided Slatersteven will withdraw to his normal corner. jps (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

How is this "shall we say, aggressive editing by cryptozoology-sympathetic editors" neutral and not an Ad hominem?Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Was the editing aggressive? Yes it was. Are the editors cryptozoology-sympathetic? Yes they are. Thus, this is a neutral description. It's even couched with a linguistic marker to indicate that he is attempting to be diplomatic. Honestly, this is not so much a tempest in a teapot as it is a non-event. jps (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I think we are going to have to let others decide if this is "diplomatic". And no not all the eds who oppose his suggestions are cryptozoology-sympathetic editors, and that is a massive assumption of bad faith. They just do not agree with his interpretation of policy, or the way he conducts his debates. Nor is it relevant to any discussion that about fringe theories (or reliable sources) that "(I've personally been threatened and seen off-site lobbying now relating to the topic).". And it is hard to see how "...and is fiercely defended by fringe proponents,..." is not seeking allies how share his POV.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I wish Slatersteven didn't open this. When talking about someone generally on the science side of pseudoscience debates, the standard for showing behavioural problems is automatically higher in practice (for good reason, to be clear). Bloodofox's battleground approach to the list article, with endless threads, ad nauseum arguments, repeated efforts at deleting/merging/gutting over the course of years is problematic but a couple links, some of which arent themselves really an issue, is not going to achieve anything. Bloodofox perceives enmity in folkloristics vs. cryptozoology and fights hard against the latter. Often for the good, but with problems here. Posting to ftn is not canvassing but in the merge thread he pinged exclusively people on the folklore "side" despite there having been many, many more involved editors in these threads. that's canvassing. Don't know there's anything to be done about it beyond a trout without a heap more diffs though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The editors I pinged are the most active editors on this and related topics on the site, all of which I've had disagreements with in the past and only one of whom has to date voted on any merger connected to the article in the past. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they voted differently than I did (they certainly have in the past).

As cryptozoology articles are usually watched closely by cryptozoology and related pseudoscience proponents (often defended by Rhododendrites and Slatersteven, and sometimes brought in from outside lobbying), the complaint here really appears be founded on the fact that I've attempted to bring in knowledgeable outside editors into the discussion rather than to allow proponents to dominate discourse and produce what I perceive to be pretzel arguments around WP:RS. Unfortunately, to date, none of those I've pinged have weighed in. (Note Rhododendrites curiously asked me to no longer respond to comments directed to me on his talk page earlier today: [61]). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Really LuckyLouie No edits in Cryptozoology for 2 years, Katolophyromai I gave up trying to find out when he had ever edited the page (same with Alarichall). But at least LuckyLouie has been more active over at list of Cryptids, having made an edit a few months ago. I would hardly call them the most active. Indeed it was odd you picked three edds who seem to have so inactive on those pages.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Check their edit histories. They're the most active editors on the topic of folklore on the site, particularly regarding fabulous beasts. Cryptozoology hijacking is a major problem on many of these articles, and these editors commonly rewrite articles to meet WP:RS and WP:PROFRINGE. Check out, for example, this gem—before: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partridge_Creek_monster&oldid=843159631), after: Partridge Creek monster. There are many other examples like that out there from the past year or so. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You did not ping Tronvillain, who seems to have been at least as active.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Give it a second look. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I stand corrected. I think that I am going to ask for this to be closed, because whilst I do not think this undermined my case I know that there are enough people out there who will use it in that way for this to go nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

often defended by Rhododendrites and Slatersteven - part of the toxic us vs. them, with bloodofox or with the mass conspiracy of cryptozoology-pushing pseudoscientists, at the root of the problem I have with bloodofox's pov. I came across the list of cryptids article by chance years ago and, according to this (the actual list of people most active on the the topic being discussed), apparently I've removed more material from it than anyone (if I'm reading that correctly?). I've also supported some of bloodofox's arguments about the more terrible sources people keep wanting to use and/or the use of OR. I'm not on a "side" despite your repeated attempts to poison the well when I (or others) comment, characterizing me as part of the problem. It's because I don't care about cryptozoology and don't feel like I have a dog in this fight that I keep trying to opine on the talk page. As it happens, with regard to this one article, I disagree with you on many counts, and therefore you have decided I'm part of the problem. Regarding sourcing mentioned above, bloodofox also insists on pushing his own POV about sourcing. I'm quite familiar with our standards for sourcing fringe theories. The issue is there have been many threads asking not whether cryptozoology sources should be used for scientific claims (obviously they should not), but whether cryptozoology sources (I'm talking about published books, interviews in mainstream publications, etc., not personal blogs/crappy websites) are reliable sources simply to verify that something is considered a cryptid. With no consensus on that, bloodofox persists in badgering people about those sources not being allowed. Note Rhododendrites curiously asked me to no longer respond to comments directed to me on his talk page earlier today: Yep. Roughly the second or third time I've ever asked someone not to post on my talk page in 10 years and ~47k edits. Anyway... this thread isn't going to go anywhere and I've gotten more involved than I intended now. I know there's not much point in griping while waving a hand at page histories, without a pile of diffs, and I don't have the time or inclination to do that in the near-to-mid future. So with that I'll withdraw. As Slatersteven says, it can probably be closed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User:FenceSitter

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.

---

• FenceSitter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This discussion on User talk:FenceSitter indicates that FenceSitter is an alternate account. In that discussion, which took place two days ago, admin User:Abecedare advises FenceSitter to post the relationship between the two accounts: "update your userpage". I see no indication that this has been done.

On User:FenceSitter, the statement is made:

FenceSitter is a single-purpose account narrowly limited to improving Wikipedia.

Presumably, every legitimate account on Wikipedia is here to improve the project in some way. Those who are not here for that purpose are frequently blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Given that, how is it possible for this statement to be the presentation of a legitimate use for an alternate account? If every (legitimate) account is here to improve Wikipedia, how does that allow making another account "limited to improving Wikipedia" allowable?

I don't believe it does, and I ask that either an admin step in and block FenceSitter, or that the community ban the account as a special interest account focused entirely on "improving" articles on Identitarianism to make them more palatable to the general public, and thereby WP:PROMOTE identitarianism. [62]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I could imagine a situation where a good faith editor creates a second account to handle a controversial topic in ways they feel are necessary but which would be unpopular within this community. Not saying that's the case here, though.

Unless a member of ArbCom or a CU can confirm for us that FenceSitter has disclosed their original account to them, then not only should FenceSitter be blocked but a CU should try to reveal their original account so that user can at least be topic banned from political articles.

Because of the possibility they emailed ArbCom and forgot to leave a note on their page saying "ArbCom knows," I haven't blocked yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have not disclosed my main account to ArbCom or CheckUser.

• "narrowly limited to improving Wikipedia" is a joke. If it is inappropriate, I can replace it with a more serious clarification.

• Since the issue of COI was raised on my talk page: I am not a member of, or in any way involved with, any identitarian group, in the broadest senses of "involved with" and "identitarian".

• I regret using this account in discussions internal to the project, in violation of WP:ILLEGIT, including especially the AN/I case of LiamNotNeeson/DistractedOften, and have committed not to do so again.

• I do not believe I am pushing any POV. I do believe that a lot of articles around "identitarianism" lack nuance, mostly due to, I believe, the out-group homogeneity effect of editors disgusted with some sometimes quite deeply unpleasant politics. I'm trying to restore nuance based on reliable sources, especially academic ones where available. But when we hate something, it's very easy to confuse a fair examination of it for a defence of it. I am trying to do the former.

• Mindful of User:Abecedare's warning to me concerning legitimate scrutiny, I am trying to be more sensitive to other editor's concerns. For example, here where I saw a problem with an article, instead of being bold and fixing it as I thought best, I raised the issue on the talk page, to gather consensus first. Nevertheless this seems to be the immediate trigger for Beyond My Ken's complaint.

FenceSitter (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that while this bit of sophistry may have been the proximate impulse toward filing this report, the initial cause was this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that FenceSitter has stated he hasn't informed Arbcom of an alternative account, has not denied having one (indeed, it sounds like he's confirmed he does), has not disclosed it here and has attempted to unring the bell by removing the offending statement from his userpage, a block is in order. Gaming is never appreciated. John from Idegon (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

What have I removed from my userpage? FenceSitter (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you name your other account? Kraose (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it private, per the "privacy" section of WP:VALIDALT. FenceSitter (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Reveal it to Arbcom and they will see if you are into same subject. Kraose (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you now or have you ever been a sockpuppet? Fish+Karate 09:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, FenceSitter admits to being a sock, that's not the issue. The question is whether FenceSitter is a legitimate alternate account or not. They invoke privacy reasons for having an alternate account, but is unwilling to reveal to ArbCom or a CU what the original account is to verify that these concerns are real, and that the account isn't being used simply to avoid scrutiny. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@FenceSitter: WP:VALIDALT says If you are considering using an alternative account under this provision, please read the notification section below.
That section says Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or members of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, as well as editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so. Concerned editors may wish to email the arbitration committee or any individual with checkuser rights. Your edits are attracting scrutiny, and a number of users would disagree with the idea that your editing behavior itself is not problematic. If your next edit to any part of the site is anything but a response here that you have notified an Arbiter or CheckUser that you name in the response (so they can confirm you've notified them), I don't see why we shouldn't block you under WP:ILLEGIT and have a CheckUser reveal your main account so that account can be topic banned. You can set up an email at Special:Preferences and use that to privately contact an Arbiter or CheckUser. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have disclosed my main account to User:Arbitration Committee (from both accounts). FenceSitter (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a step in the right direction, so ArbCom can make a determination if your privacy concerns are legitimate or not. However, there's also the entirely separate issue of your POV editing on behalf of Identitarianism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Given User:FenceSitter's:
  1. refusal to disclose main acount(s) to even ArbCom//CU,
  2. prior illegit use of this account (see note), and
  3. POV editing in the area (eg [63] and [64]; the latter edit dilutes/misrepresents what sources, including the one the user added, actually say was the cause for the conviction).

I am running out of good faith. Pinging User:Bbb23 to opine if this still qualifies as legitimate use of an alternate single purpose accounts (other admins/CUs are also welcome to chime in) Abecedare (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I would e-mail ArbCom with a link to this discussion and let them deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• In the now-archived discussion about Liamnotneeson, I had opened a section about FenceSitter but the discussion was closed immediately afterwards, since Liamnotneeson was indeffed in the meantime. Based on FenceSitter's conduct in that discussion and their overall contribs, I had proposed action. I am reposting that. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Indef for FenceSitter

Following on User:Ian.thomson's comment, in the Liamnotneeson case thread -- In my view, User:FenceSitter's behavior is the same as Liamnotneeson, just without the symbol on their userpage. Editing privileges are given freely in the good faith that people will use them to build an encyclopedia. They are not given so people can come here solely to advocate in favor of some ideology; good faith is not a suicide pact. This user's entire history of contribs = WP:PROMO violation. Declaring that one is a SPA doesn't make it somehow "better", and advocating one POV is not improving Wikipedia.. We don't need to concern ourselves with the alt account issues; the behavior of this account is enough. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have emailed the ArbCom to take a look at the issue, since ordinary editors/admins don't have knowledge of the user's complete editing history. In the meantime I am advising User:FenceSitter not to edit outside this thread or their talkpage, till they hear back from the committee and possibly get an all-clear. Abecedare (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now disclosed my main account to User:Arbitration Committee. FenceSitter (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• User:Abecedare your post above is WP:OFFTOPIC here; this subthread is about an indef of this account, based on this account's behavior peristently violating WP:SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• This diff seems indicative of a trend in FenceSitter's POV pushing. [65] Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That post seems to be questioning whether or not a given source supports the use of the term "far right". Why is that problematic? Paul August ☎ 16:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Because it's talking about a group that is so obviously far-right that trying to shift POV away from that is POV pushing. WP:DUCK applies. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I would hasten to add that there's no logical reason to doubt that the source supports it. One needs to be of the mind that the Identitarian movement is not far right for the argument presented in that diff to appear to be anything but whitewashing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef. Like events in the real world in the US right now, the FenceSitter issue runs on two tracks. The first is the question of whether the FenceSitter account is a legitimate alternate account, which seems to hinge on whether their privacy concerns are legitimate or not. Now that they've identified their master account to ArbCom, I suppose that we'll be hearing from them as to whether a determination has been made about that. (Reminder: @Arbitration Committee:)
  The second track concerns FenceSitter's editing itself. FS only edits article on the Identitarianism movement, and it's worth looking at those edits. I have an analysis underway to characterize thom, with specific diffs to illustrate, but due to the margin of this page being too small I can't post it here a lack of time in the real world, I'm not yet ready to post it. I will do so ASAP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• I'm wondering why we're not hearing from ArbCom here. Surely they would want to address whether we're dealing with an established editor in good standing with legitimate privacy concerns if there's an apparent consensus to block them indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 23:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible that the user in question did not, in fact, disclose their alt? I would have expected to hear from the Arbitration Committee by now; It's been nearly a week. Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Doug Weller: as an active Arbcom member to see if he can give us a yay or nay on the legitimacy of the alt account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: watch this space. Or some space. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I used to watch space, but they cancelled it... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have blocked FenceSitter as an Arbitration Committee action. If the owner does not disclose the link publicly, the main account will also be blocked. Katie^talk 20:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay folks... Let's all try to contain our surprise. Don't everybody gasp at once, we might get dizzy... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The collective gasps would sound like this Jip Orlando (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• @KrakatoaKatie: Would the Committee think it proper to share with all our CheckUsers (and no one else) the name of the master account, so that they can be cognizant of it if a similar "legitimate" sock account is created? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• That won't be necessary. I am FenceSitter. —Ashley Y 01:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Block 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'd be grateful if someone could re-block IP 193.240.59.34. They were blocked recently by GiantSnowman for a block evasion, and have now returned. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts - Checking... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Oshwah for the speedy turnaround. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts - You bet; always happy to help ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock needed

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

---

Can an administrator block 2601:43:8201:6dec::/64? It's a LTA vandal who changes dates in a lot of articles. They've previously edited under 2001:8003:6523:9f00::/64 and 2001:8003:6499:a500::/64. Thanks. Nihlus 21:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Linkspammer

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.

---

Wajahat009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This account's sole purpose seems to be to insert linkspam to piracy sites, like here. Eik Corell (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Not anymore it isn't. Indeffed, not here to build an encyclopaedia. But we may need to check for socks after and maybe consider blacklisting that URL. Canterbury Tail talk 14:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail beat me to the punch. Thanks for taking care of the issue :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

86.0.20.87

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.

---

• 86.0.20.87 (talk · contribs)
• Maria Amor Torres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit-warring, using Wikipedia as a soapbox for promtion, use of self-published articles and press releases for promotional material in a BLP.

WP:SPA account. Almost certainly a WP:COI given the article history, recent and past. Likely Maureen Brindle (talk · contribs) or a meatpuppet.

Only attempt at any discussion from this ip is [66] Not acceptable. This is the reason that Wikipedia has too few women contributors. Please put this back.

While Maureen Brindle appears to have stopped editing the article and is responding to requests made by editors, the ip has not and needs to be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've requested page protection for Maria Amor Torres, given that a new SPA ip just popped up. --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is now under partial protection. That should solve most, if not all, of the problems. --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected until November 2018. I'm going to hold off on blocking the IP addresses involved so that we can keep eyes on their editing and see if this disruption travels to articles elsewhere. Lets keep an eye on things in the meantime; if disruption continues, file another ANI report and someone will be happy to look into it or let me know. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Jzsj

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.

---

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

Blocked 1 month for violation of topic ban by soliciting input from another user: "Where an educational institution is involved I am banned from restoring any of the article. I hope you will take appropriate action on this article".

A couple of previous blocks and a very clear series of problematic edits, including WP:DEADHORSE/WP:BLUDGEON and persistent editing of others' comments at AfD especially. The "school wars" element also indicates a firm response, and a lot of people have given this user warnings and advice. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what this section is for. --Tarage (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd assume JzG is looking for a review of his actions? I say, good block for TBAN violation, and enough evidence on the blocked user's talk page alone to make this an Indef for CIR. John from Idegon (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Endorse block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Off-Wikipedia attempt to subvert sourcing and influence article content

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 report concerns Zenkaino lovelive and the IP 211.252.20.103, both of whom are SPAs whose edits are confined to series of content classification articles. The problem itself started in early June when I corrected the age rating at Video game content rating system for the New Zealand "M" entry. The Wikipedia article gave an age prescription of "10", whereas the actual rating itself stipulates an age of 16. The mistake was originally made by me because the age isn't clear at the official website unless you enlarge the image. The original error was based on this information blog which states that a lot of "M" rated films are based on literature popular with the 10+ range. That doesn't always means the films themselves will be suitable for 10-year-olds though, and the blog entry clearly states the author's "views do not represent those of the Chief Censor or of the Classification Office". The history is rather convoluted so I will present it as a timeline.

• June 9: Zenkaino lovelive reverts the correction. This in itself is not problematic because the official website is confusing unless you enlarge the label.
• August 21: 211.252.20.103 then downgrades the age to 13 in the table. The IP does not give any explanation for this.
• August 24: Zenkaino lovelive begins a discussion at Talk:Video_game_content_rating_system#NZ_M_source where he proffers a Masters thesis as a source for the new age. The problem though is that the thesis explicitly cites Wikipedia as a source for the ratings (on pages 14–15).
• August 29: 211.252.20.103 makes a couple of changes at rating-system.wikia.com, changing the ages from 16 to 10: [67] and [68].
• Despite the discussion at the Video content ratings article, Zenkaino lovelive initates the same change at the Motion picture content rating system article, using the corrupted rating-system.wikia.com as a source.
• After I revert him he tries to con me at my talk page: User_talk:Betty_Logan#Source_is_confusing

It seems pretty obvious to me that they are the same editor and they are trying to manipulate Wikipedia's sourcing system to insert factually incorrect content into articles. There have been other incidents involving this editor in regards to factually questionable edits, but I had assumed good faith until now but he has crossed the line with this stunt. I simply don't trust him and I would like the community to consider a topic ban from this group of topics. Betty Logan (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me, not helped by a poor understanding of WP:RS policy all round. Wikia obviously isn't WP:RS, but citing an out-of-context image [69] seems questionable too. If this rating system has a legal basis, it should be possible to find proper sourcing. 81.154.7.26 (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not "out of context". As I explain above it is an enlargement of the image at https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/find-ratings/new-zealands-classification-labels/, which is the official site for New Zealand's Classification office. You have to enlarge the image to view the label clearly. Also, you are wrong to characterise the problem as a "content dispute" because this report is not about a disagreement over sources, and if it were I would have gone to RS/N. This report is about off-wiki conduct, specifically manipulating off-site information as an IP and then attempting to use those sources to push through changes on Wikipedia. I don't think that demonstrates a "poor understanding of RS policy", I think that actually demonstrates a very good understanding of RS policy since the editor is attempting to game it. Do we really want editors fabricating claims on other sites and then using those sites to add content to Wikipedia? That is the question being asked here. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, 'off-wiki conduct' isn't really something WP:ANI will generally concern itself with. Particularly when the conduct is taking place on another wiki, which can't be cited as a source, and accordingly is of no relevance to our article. Nobody is going to impose a Wikipedia topic ban for an edit made on Wikia. 81.154.7.26 (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input but this board is not a discussion forum, it's a place for raising behavioral issues with administrators so perhaps it would be better to let an actual administrator review the situation. Betty Logan (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, any editor in good standing may comment. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to be getting sidetracked, and not towards a resolution. In a nutshell: Zenkaino lovelive is doctoring wikias with the intended purpose of manipulating content here on Wikipedia so that it contradicts the Office of Film and Literature Classification (New Zealand)'s own guidelines. Are we cool with editors doing this? Personally I do not think it is any different to an editor changing content and faking sources—which would definitely be regarded as a behavioral issue and not a "content issue"—and this is just a more sophisticated way of essentially doing the same thing, which is why I raised the issue here and not at RS/N. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Are we cool with it? As an issue for Wikia, not particularly, since I think that accuracy is a good thing. As an issue for Wikipedia though? As far as I can see, it isn't one. Per WP:RS, Wikia content is an irrelevance. And I certainly see no reason why Wikipedia should try to impose its rules beyond the project, in circumstances where it has no bearing on article content. If Zenkaino lovelive actually is 'doctoring wikias', we can point out to him/her that it is a waste of time, and I don't think it would be objectionable to express our personal opinions regarding the merits of doing so, but asking for a topic ban because somebody is doing something off-Wikipedia that doesn't affect the project seems to me to be not only excessive but downright objectionable in of itself. Wikipedia is not the internet policing service, and shouldn't act as if it is. It seems to me that the way to resolve this would be for someone other than Betty Logan (who seems to have been a fixture on ZL's talk page) to explain to ZL how WP:RS works, and to leave it at that until such time as there are issues that actually affect Wikipedia articles. 81.154.7.26 (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Further to this, Betty Logan doesn't seem to have provided any evidence that ZL or the IP have actually done anything at all after her warning that she would "report the behavior as disruptive activity" if it continued. [70] Why should we not assume that the warning has worked? 81.154.7.26 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

2001:16A2:B5AA:384:5D43:1F48:2FC0:6A98

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/Orfeh

This page is being continually updated/violated with incorrect content about the subject - name, career, date of birth etc.

Last user made some ridiculous edits without citation, or using incorrect citations, which do not support claims or discredit factual info.

This is the user.

2001:16A2:B5AA:384:5D43:1F48:2FC0:6A98

Please investigate and revert back to previous version. Can this page also be monitored for further, subsequent activity?

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadway1107 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The edit made was just reverted, and prior to that there hasn't been any edits on the page since June. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding to RickinBaltimore's response - if users are engaging in the addition of unreferenced or incorrect content, revert the edits and warn the user. If the behaviors continue despite repeated warnings, file a report at AIV. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Undue size for neo-Nazi logo

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.

---

Editor User:Mlesch keeps increasing the size of the logo for the Australian neo-Nazi group Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging to much larger than it needs to be. [71], [72],[73] The essence of the logo is already on the page in two other places in the infobox. I've asked them on their talk page to discuss this on the article talk page [74], but they just keep at it instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I've dropped a 3rr warning on his talk page; I would consider that a final warning on the matter. If he reverts similarly again, please let me or another admin know, and we'll block. --Jayron32 16:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that's the end of it. Beyond My Ken (talk)

@Jayron32: Just as an FYI, but they already received that 3RR warning last month. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and if you find that he does not behave from here forward, then please let me know, so I can take care of it. I can't very well block him for a month-old action; that isn't very useful at this point. Since I just gave him a new warning, lets see where he goes from here. --Jayron32 16:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Good call with the warning. If it continues, someone can easily take action for the disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

SPA and likely SOCK

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

---

It has happened at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party#Requested move 23 August 2018. The account of ElViejoVascon was created at 11:05, 23 August 2018 (right after the move request was filled at 10:53, 23 August 2018), but has not had any sort of activity until 13:55, 29 August 2018. Its only activity limits to two edits in that move discussion. Arguments used are the same as those used throughout the whole talk page by the two IP accounts which had defended a move to "Basque National Party", including the one filling the move request. Up until this user's comment there was no other !vote supporting the move, with the 7-day deadline for the request to be processed about to expire in a few hours. The IP account is located in the Basque Country, whereas ElViejoVascon's username also implies a Basque origin. It clearly looks like a duck intended for giving the impression of more support for the move than there really is by suggesting they are different people. Impru20^talk 14:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) It's not technically a violation for an IP editor to create an account, and then to continue activity on the same page. If you confronted them about it and they denied it, but your evidence was compelling enough to convince an SPI closer that they are the same, that (the denial) would be a violation. Casting a double !vote in an RM is also technically a violation, but it's not uncommon for editors to inadvertently assume that their initial "nomination" did not qualify as a full !vote. You do not appear to have made any attempt to discuss this issue with the user in question before coming here, which is odd because it is only by denying an attempt at discussion that the sockpuppetry, if that even is what it is, would become a violation. Furthermore, Up until this user's comment there was no other !vote supporting the move looks a lot less like evidence of sockpuppetry when one realizes that the move has only been opposed by two editors, and with the 7-day deadline for the request to be processed about to expire in a few hours is ... not how RMs work (2-2 is virtually the same as 2-1 against, as far as RM closers are concerned, so if it was a deliberate attempt to game the system it was a feckless one, and the 7-day thing is not a "deadline"). Propose closing this thread as jumping the gun; please attempt to discuss with the user, or if you feel your evidence is strong enough open an SPI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

BTW: The OP refers to "the two IP accounts"; if the "sock" account is the same as the IP that didn't open the RM (88.14.194.11) and these are two different people, then no violation has taken place (except Impru20's jumping straight to ANI). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I request and ask to have good faith, it is an insult that an user that looks obsessed with the title of an article spends the afternoon in wikipedia creating fake news about an user like me that only wants to contribute, please respect, I hope you can read my second editing in wikipedia and learn about basque grammar, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_language#Grammar ElViejoVascon (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reported this basically because 1) the IPs did not have any other contributions in Wikipedia than trying to have the Basque Nationalist Party article moved to Basque National Party (this from a month or so before the move request itself), with the newly created account mirroring the exact same beheaviour (thus being a clear WP:SPA case for all three of these, at least for now), and 2) because the newly-created user account was left in sleeper mode from the beginning of the move discussion to roughly today, with their only edits so far mirrorring the IPs previous behaviour.

The two IPs I'm referring to (85.86.115.126 and 62.99.79.62) are indeed the same person, as these have been used interchangeably for replying throughout the discussion at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party#Basque national party. As these could have been dynamic IPs and they did not tried to impersonate two people at that time I did not complain about that back then. I do not know about 88.14.194.11, whose behaviour is similar but which is geo-located in a different city.

Nonetheless, I did confront the issue with the user in the move discussion itself roughly at the same time than filling this report, and s/he has replied to it. I do not know from the reply whether they have acknowledged or denied that they are indeed the same person, though I am inclined to think that this has been acknowledged after saying that a long time ago I started to think about create my own account.

Since this has seemingly been done, that the user has vowed to contribute in other areas and given that the contribution history of both the IPs and the account is still low, I think that this may be closed for now. Impru20^talk 15:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@ElViejoVascon: Reporting a suspect behaviour with evidence is not an insult. Your "second edit" in Wikipedia has been done only after I pointed out to you that you were only editing at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party for pressing for a move change to "Basque National Party". Nonetheless, after you have (seemingly?) confirmed that you are the same as the IP and that you intend for your new account to work in new areas, I think we may assume good faith from you and the report may be dropped. Impru20^talk 15:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I read "after you have (seemingly?) confirmed that you are the same as the IP and that you intend for your new account to work in new areas", are you ok? Have you any problem? Please I ask you to respect and stop an obsessive narrative created with the bad faith and intention ElViejoVascon (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Clear DUCK now, possible COI

@Hijiri88: After this, I'm strucking all mentions to my intention to close down this report. At best, this is a clear case of WP:MEAT; at worst, it is a poorly-thought attempt from this user to disguise their identity and their sockpuppetry. And given the already presented evidence and ElViejoVascon's reply to user Asqueladd at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party#Requested move 23 August 2018 (this one) it would confirm my previous hint at sockpuppetry, as this "Spanish Socialist party" argument was already used exactly under very similar words by the IPs in the previous discussion at the talk page (here from 85.86.115.126 and here from 62.99.79.62). And well, just note how both the IPs and this user all fail to spell "Spanish Socialist Workers' Party" correctly (instead writing "Worker's", [75] [76] [77]), and all of them also happen to fail similarly in even properly signing their own comments ([78] [79] [80] [81] [82]). This indeed falls well under WP:DUCK, so I'm requesting that proper actions are taken, specially now that the user tries to make it appear as if all of these were different people. Impru20^talk 15:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Also noting that the user claims that he was alerted last Saturday by the person who started the discussion of the strange and rare obsession of a wiki member (in a reference to myself) against a simply name change of a party that both persons are members. This other person would not ever write again in wikipedia after her experience with you. Firstly, this would have been WP:HARASS, which should have been reported if it did really happen. Secondly, this alleged story is full of contradictions, such as the person seemingly refusing to write again in Wikipedia after "her experience with me" (despite s/he filling the move request anyway), that such a displeasure with Wikipedia editing came even when I had not been offensive at all throughout the discussion at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party#Basque national party or that such a HARASS behaviour has not been reported by any of these accounts until I filled this report arguing that ElViejoVascon was a sockpuppet account. Further, this would not be the first time that this person accuses me of "obscure interests" or other bad faith-thinking throughout the discussion at the talk page ([83]). Thirdly and finally, the user confirmed late into the discussion that "both persons" (whether they are various, or just one if being mere socks) are members of the party, so this could also involve a potential WP:COI (with neither the user of the IP accounts disclosing this until this edit). Impru20^talk 16:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please, someone also check this. It's the user going back to comment on (one of) their IP account, but looks like they seemingly thought they were editing under the ElViejoVascon account. And I'm getting seriously tired of the user drawing a wall of lies on me to try to fend off their responsability for the sockpuppetry at the talk page. If they keep on their HARASS acussations on me I demand that, at least, they care to fill a full-fledged report with proper evidence rather than sneakily getting them through without any proof, so that I may at least defend from these accordingly. Otherwise I should add WP:NPA to the list of policy breaches as well. Impru20^talk 18:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The user has posted a further comment using the IP account, then signed it using the user account, while trying to excuse any sockpuppetry by telling a story of events which would fall under meatpuppetry (??). This has reached the point whether it has become pointless whether this is one or several people into play, as either would result in a policy breach. The user is now likely to come over this noticeboard too to "denounce" the alleged harassment I have conducted to them. May I please request for some admin to take a look at this for once before this gets even crazier? This has been left unattended and it's likely going to expand further. Thank you. Impru20^talk 22:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Impru20 - Have you filed an SPI report? Can you link me to it? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I initially filled this here because of the issue of both IP and user accounts involved (making a CU not viable), as well as there being so many IPs involved, with the user account being created after the IPs first edits, to the point that I really did not know which one to put as the sockmaster. I then thought on doing it after further evidence came out, but did not do it because this report was still open and because the situation was pretty much chaotic (a possible COI, the user rejecting SOCK but acknowledging a MEAT while still looking like a DUCK, now engaging in PA behaviour, etc). Should I fill a SPI instead? Impru20^talk 11:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Impru20 - I just saw that you had "clear DUCK" titled in this section header and "likely SOCK" in the main section header for your report here - I thought you may have filed an SPI and wanted to read it in order to try and get a TL;DR of what's going on here and the evidence provided. Hmm... okay... let me finish up a few things, read through your report here, and get back to you. There's a lot of details to read through and I know that an admin hasn't responded to your report in order to help. Stand by; I'm Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Oshwah: Yeah, I initially posted this under "likely SOCK" because of behavioural evidence that ElViejoVascon could be a SPA managed by the IP accounts, but with a behaviour that did not seem as serious at the time to justify a SPI (it has gotten much worse ever since). I didn't intend for a sub-section to be created, but did it after this person started mixing up the IP and user accounts to the point this was so obvious. I will try to summarize it here.

• The accounts involved in this are three IPs (62.99.79.62, 88.14.194.11 and 85.86.115.126) and one user account (ElViejoVascon). The article involved is Basque Nationalist Party, and particularly, the last two discussions at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party.
• This started when an IP (62.99.79.62) sought to have Basque Nationalist Party moved to Basque National Party on 24 July ([84] [85]). There was a brief discussion at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party#Basque national party on 25 July but this was short and the issue seemingly ended there.
• The discussion resumed when I tried to engage another IP (88.14.194.11) who had made further edits at the article trying to change the name ([86] [87]), which I reverted ([88] [89]). The IP replied with personal language ([90]), which I pointed out ([91]). This continued for about 2-3 days, but this time I was replied by two different IPs: 62.99.79.62 (the one that was used back in July) and 85.86.115.126, with 88.14.194.11 not being used ever since. I suggested them to fill a proper RM, since the discussion was going nowhere and they tried to kept it personal (([92])), which 62.99.79.62 did ([93]). (Note: That was a brief summary, but I suggest that the discussion be revised to check whether I did really harass this person, as s/he has claimed later on. I do not think I was offensive at any point, but I did have to point out at several times that this user was going personal and was assuming bad faith on me from the beginning ([94]). Up until here, it seemed obvious that all three IP accounts were managed by the same person due to behavioural evidence (the "Spanish Socialist party" argument done by both 85.86.115.126 and 62.99.79.62; the persistent personal and bad faith-assumption behaviour on me by 88.14.194.11, 85.86.115.126 ([95] [96]) and 62.99.79.62 ([97] [98]), the failure in properly signing their comments ([99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]), two of the IPs sharing the same location and the fact that all three IPs had been in use interchangeably throughout the discussion – something I did not mind back then because it seemed like a dynamic IP in use as well as because they did not tried to impersonate different people at the time).
• Six days after the RM was filled, the ElViejoVascon account appeared in support of the move ([105]). The fact that the account was created right after the RM was filled (11:05, 23 August 2018, as opposed to 10:53, 23 August 2018); that it had no other activity at the time but the support of the RM (note that here I mean before I filled this ANI report at 14:29, 29 August 2018), as well as the similar behaviour and use of arguments than the IPs brought me to think this was a clear case of WP:BADSOCK, which led me to fill this ANI report. As you can see above, Hijiri 88 pointed out that this report could have been premature at first, so I initially agreed to close it down and have the issue settled. However, after this edit, in which ElViejoVascon not only (falsely) accused me of walking another person (allegedly one of the IP accounts) out of WP but even acknowledged some sort of WP:MEAT, brought me to struck my proposal to close this report ([106]). (Note that I am not saying that I think this is MEAT rather than SOCK, but that, at the best of situations, the user is acknoledging a situation of MEAT in order to try to evade any SOCK claims against them). The user also claimed (as some sort of justification for their motives) that the IPs involved in the discussion were PNV members ([107]), a fact which had not been disclosed until that time, meaning there could be a possible WP:COI in here as well (which would explain such a persistence in having the article title renamed to "National").
• Ever since, ElViejoVascon, aside from trying to accuse me of harassing them (despite no evidence having been presented for such a claim, nor did them cared to fill a proper report at ANI or elsewhere), has openly stated that s/he and the IP accounts are, allegedly, different people, and that they had no direct involvement in WP up until creating the account ([108] [109] [110]). However, further evidence, aside from the similar beheaviour, make this a clear WP:DUCK, namely: the same use of the "Spanish Socialist party" argument as done by the IPs ([111]) (Note: also including the same mispelling of "Workers'" → "Worker's" as previously done by 85.86.115.126 and 62.99.79.62), the same issue with failing to properly sign their comments ([112] [113]) and the fact that, at some point throughout yesterday, the user seemingly forgot to log in and posted several replies under the 85.86.115.126 IP ([114] [115]), one of which they subsequently went on to sign under their user account ([116]).
• Also worth noting is that after I filled the ANI report, which initially involved SPA, the user tried to edit some other articles to disguise their true motives (even calling for other users to check their edits).

To summarize all of it: I think this is a clear DUCK. 62.99.79.62, 85.86.115.126 and ElViejoVascon are clearly interconnected, and 88.14.194.11 could probably be as well. However, even if we did consider that there was no SOCK issue, the user itself acknowledges having engaged in MEAT, has revealed there could be a possible COI in this and their own behaviour has been, from the very beginning of the discussion, in breach of both NPA (with both direct comments on me as a contributor and outright insults) and AGF (by accusing me of harrassing without any proof). And all of this just for having Basque Nationalist Party moved to Basque National Party. Impru20^talk 14:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I was replying to the TL;DR request of the situation but it was removed a few minutes before I got finished with all of it. I nonetheless have posted it in case it could be of help. Impru20^talk 14:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Impru20 - Okay, I read through the initial complaint and concerns here and the evidence provided. TL;DR: users 85.86.115.126, 62.99.79.62, and ElViejoVascon are accused of violating Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy. Evidence includes all users failing to spell "Spanish Socialist Workers' Party" correctly (apostrophe placement) ([117] [118] [119]), all users failing to sign their comments ([120] [121] [122] [123] [124]), and (most telling of all) this edit, where the user account changes the signature from displaying the IP address to displaying their username instead. Both IP addresses are also from the same ISP and geolocation. Based on the evidence, I believe that there's enough to assert that the 85.86.115.126 and the user account are being operated by the same person. The 62.99.79.62 IP hasn't edited since August 23rd and I'll consider it stale given the timeline of events. At this time, I believe that a warning left on both user talk pages regarding editing while logged out is the appropriate first step to take here. Assuming good faith, the editor may not be aware that what they're doing is disruptive and can be considered an attempt to deceive others if it continues. A polite and cordial warning is what will probably resolve this matter, and if the editing pattern continues after the user has been warned, we can consider action from there... but not before. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Seems appropiate to me. However, should I issue the warnings myself? Also, while 62.99.79.62 has not edited since August 23rd, it was from this account that the RM at Talk:Basque Nationalist Party#Requested move 23 August 2018, so that would mean that ElViejoVascon's !vote there would have to be noted as duplicate. I could do all of this myself but I prefer to avoid further escalation if possible. Impru20^talk 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll do that for you, so that you don't get yourself tangled further into the finger pointing and accusations that have been ongoing - stand by. I'm taking care of a few requests for help, and I'll get this taken care of next :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, seems fine. Thank you so much for the effort, btw, as it must have been insane to get through the whole discussion (which wasn't precisely short). Impru20^talk 14:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Impru20 - No problem; always happy to help ;-). I've left warnings on each user's talk page. I'm not sure if the creation of the page move proposal itself counts as a support vote (usually, people add their support "as creator" or "as nominator"), so I left that page alone until this can be verified first. If the creation of the proposal in itself does not add a "support vote", then there's no "duplicate vote" to strike out. Otherwise, yes, we'll strike one out as a duplicate... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thank you. On the issue of the RM creation issue, the nomination itself is already counted as support. As per Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Commenting_in_a_requested_move, nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line, unless it is a procedural nomination with which the nominator does not agree (which is not the case in here). Impru20^talk 15:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Impru20 - Yup, I found that out myself just now as well - cool deal. I'm on it! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done - duplicate vote has been redacted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and false allegations by 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.

---

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

A few days ago, I reverted this IP editor for unsourced content and possible original research on the page WWWW-FM here. The IP then left this message on my talk page, which is questionable at best in terms of WP:CIVIL. I replied as best I could, then I got another message from the same IP (here, then edited here). In the message, the IP accused me of violating 3RR (which I have not done to my knowledge and definitely did not do on the page in question) and not assuming good faith. They also called me a "KNOW NOTHING, NIT PICKING NERD." Following the first message, I did give them a talk page warning here, but they clearly did not heed that warning. Aspening (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to revert their nonsense from your talk page (as I just did) and once an admin wanders around, I'm guessing the block button will be swiftly pushed. Nonsense-spewing IPs don't tend to have happy endings here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You guessed correctly; we edit conflicted when I was posting that I'd just blocked GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Maureen Brindle

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.

---

• Maureen Brindle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maria Amor Torres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:COIN#Maureen Brindle (COI discussion)

This editor continues to directly edit this article despite a COI and multiple warnings on her talk page. I still think we can get this editor engaged in a productive way, but it's probably time for a brief block.

@Jytdog: Would appreciate your opinion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 - Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 - It's clear that this user has been talked to and warned for their edits to Maria Amor Torres numerous times and by multiple editors. They are not communicating and continue to edit against consensus and outside compliance with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines regarding personal conflicts of interest. I've blocked the user for 72 hours in order to get them to stop the disruption, start communicating with others and follow the directions that have been given to them multiple times. Should the issues continue after their block expires, file another ANI report or let me know and I'll be happy to take a further look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Sharif Uddin

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.

---

Sharif Uddin (talk · contribs) is adding {{Animal sexual behavior}} to human sex articles (example Sexual intercourse) I don't think this template was meant to be used on human articles (if I'm wrong, then please just close this thread) I left a message about my concerns, but the user does'nt care or is just ignoring it. I'm posting this in hopes of some other techniques to "get their attention". Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

FlightTime - Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

FlightTime - Looking at the template, under the "mammals" section, it has a link to Human sexual activity titled as "human". Based on that, I think this template was meant to be added to all articles relating to living organisms and animals, including humans... What do you think? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Well obviously I think it's not meant for human articles (since I started this thread), but I hadn't noticed the things you point out, if its deemed appropriate for human articles, then I'm OK with that. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

FlightTime - It seems like it is to me. Sure, no problem. If you don't have any other concerns for me to poke at, I'll go ahead and close this thread. If you see any more problems and need me or others to take a look (or if you find out that I'm wrong and an idiot lol), don't hesitate to file another ANI report or re-open this one. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

FlightTime and Oshwah, the template is not meant for human articles or human-dominated articles. We can see that the template only has a human listing under "Primates." And that is because humans are animals and are primates. The rest of the template almost exclusively concerns non-human animals. And the Animal sexual behaviour article is solely about non-human animals. Humans already have two sex templates. As seen here at Sharif Uddin's talk page, Sharif Uddin has repeatedly been disruptive with those templates. I see no issue with the Animal sexual behaviour template being in the Sexual intercourse article since there is an "Other animals" section in that article. But it goes without saying that this template doesn't belong on all of the other human-centered sexual articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, FlightTime, Sharif Uddin - I've re-opened this ANI report due to Flyer's response above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, I don't see that it needs to stay open. Sharif Uddin hasn't spammed human articles with the template, and the template is fine in the aforementioned article. So I don't an issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - Okay; thank you for responding with your thoughts. The reason I re-opened this ANI report was so that you had a fair chance to participate like everyone else... I didn't want to leave anybody out and wanted to make sure that all things that needed to be said have been said :-). I'll leave this discussion open for a few more hours. If nobody else adds anything to it, I'll go ahead and re-close it. Thanks again for the input :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

NOTHERE and IDHT issue at Ghost (Hamlet)

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.

---

Apologies for the length. I'm bad at brevity. But I would appreciate some eyes on Ghost (Hamlet). A list of diffs would be awkward here, so I'm instead going to cite as relevant the last 10-ish edits to the article with edit summaries; the talk page thread Talk:Ghost (Hamlet)#Article sourcing (and possibly the message from the IP editor in "Excessive plot summary"); and the thread on my talk page User talk:Xover#Edit War on Ghost (Hamlet). And my main concern is with the behaviour of Kishfan (who will get a standard talk page notice immediately after posting this done). The listed IPs are only possibly related.

Article in question

• Ghost (Hamlet) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor in question

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

Possibly relevant

• 43.245.9.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 43.245.9.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.255.7.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.255.7.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The briefest summary I can manage is this: Kishfan added a {{refimprove}} tag to Ghost (Hamlet) (with Twinkle, no edit summary). After checking the article's sources and citations I concluded they were fine for what it is (it's a Start-class article; it's got other issues, but sourcing isn't actually bad), the wast majority of it was cited, and that the tag was therefore inappropriate. So I reverted its addition with the edit summary Nope, the refs are fine as they are. If you have specific concerns, please either tag them individually or bring them up on the talk page. Kishfan re-revert with the edit summary Needs more citations. If you have any issue, discuss it on talk page (the first of their standard mode of avoiding discussion by parroting). Still believing this mainly a misunderstanding by an inexperienced user, I posted a message (courtesy ping included) explaining the issue, asking them to explain their concerns on talk, and removed the tag again (not as a revert to avoid any possible negative connotations) with the edit summary Remove refimprove tag per Talk page. Please explain your concerns there. It was immediately reverted with Do not remove tag because you are doing edit war. Please discuss on talk page; and followed up by this ({{uw-3rr}}) on my user talk (there's a brief thread following the template), and this on the article talk page.

The ensuing thread consists of me asking them to provide a policy-based argument or an explanation of their concerns with the article's sourcing (I lost count after the sixth time I requested that), and them responding using deflection, parroting, personal attacks, and citing random policies; and at no point addressing the supposed problems with the article or the points I had raised in the first message. A representative selection of their responses: accusation of harassment, failing to AGF, calling article a "fan site"; accusation of harassment, failing to AGF, random list of policies; personal attack, accusation of edit warring; accusation of OWNership; accusation of IDIDNTHEARTHAT while engaging in that very behaviour (the irony). It goes on, and devolves into threats to "report [me]" for edit-warring (to which I responded with links to WP:EWN and WP:ANI, but as no such report was apparently forthcoming I've had to write this up myself). No diffs for my intervening edits, but in the default diff view they're visible in the diffs for Kishfan's edits. I'm also leaving out the last couple of exhanges since they add little of relevance (IMO) and are better just read on the talk page.

The listed IPs above jumped in in the middle there, and based on behaviour I am personally convinced that they are Kishfan socking while logged out, or possibly meatpuppets (gut feeling, not conclusive based on evidence). They have similar language problems (non-native English speakers, with quirks consistent with the IPs' geographic location), all the IPs geolocate to Pakistan (Lahore and Islamabad, but diferent ISPs), edits that intersect with Kishfan's, and their behaviour is suggestive of some form of coordination. And not least, when I fished a little on the talk page their responses were more consistent with *puppeting than not. However, I don't think the evidence is strong enough to be conclusive (or I'd have taken it to SPI/CU), so I'm mentioning it here more for completeness. Unless someone sees stronger evidence than I do, this probably isn't actionable and shouldn't factor in on the rest.

In any case, my concern is primarily WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE with a nice side helping of personal attacks, aspersions, obstructionism, and just plain general disruptive behaviour. Consensus requires actual dialog, and I've concluded the chances of that here is nil. Adult supervision and a bit of mopping would appreciated (or, hey, trouts are always nice if I've erred in judgement). --Xover (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Unreal. I've blocked the user for one week. Swarm ♠ 09:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive RM proposal that opposes what it is proposing

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.

---

Crouch, Swale has started what I think is a disruptive and pointless RM proposal at Talk:Bend#Requested_move_31_August_2018 that is improperly formed (proposes moving dab page to ... (disambiguation) but moving nothing to the base name), presents no argument in favor, and they explicitly oppose. I've asked them to close it but they say they can't. User_talk:Crouch,_Swale#Why_are_you_making_a_proposal_you_don't_support?. I'm requesting an immediate admin's WP:SNOW close and for an admin to advise the user that making proposals they do not support is a disruptive waste of editors' time. Someone who favors the move may make a formal proposal in the future that is properly formed and presents a supporting argument, but this one is just ridiculous. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 17:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I started the RM because В²C was proposing to redirect "Bend" to Bend, Oregon and I opposed to it and this comment was later posted, that the discussion was taking place without a template. I thought I was doing the right thing and I'm pretty sure that such a move would be controversial enough for RM anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I proposed nothing. I started a discussion that was intentionally informal just to see if there were sufficient interest to warrant making a formal proposal by someone who favored the proposal. --В²C ☎ 17:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(Re-opening this - sorry, Jayron32) Born2cycle, you shouldn't be doing anything remotely controversial regarding page titling or moving, nor making repeated comments at move discussions. Your indefinite block in March short-circuited a WP:AE proposal [125] that you be topic-banned from all page naming topics for doing exactly this - if you continue to do this, it will only take a simple filing at AE for this to be - inevitably - be the outcome. Talk:Nosedive (disambiguation) and Talk:Freston, Suffolk amongst others do not give me confidence that this is going to be the case. Please consider limiting your comments at move and rename discussions to one comment for or against. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

My original closing comment was as follows: " I'm closing this down because this is a non-issue, and there's no need for this. My advice to both users is to drop it. Let the discussion play out, and there isn't any need for either person to comment further. Their opinions are well known now, and it does not benefit reaching consensus to continue to snipe at each other. Just let it go. No one is going to get blocked right now, and I'd like to keep it that way." Otherwise, if you want to take responsibility for this drama, Black Kite. Be my guest, it's all yours. Vaya con dios, my friend. --Jayron32 18:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding, if you still want to make the city primary, please comment there, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

While I'm very surprised В²C filed this and we have had a few disagreements I don't want to see В²C blocked/banned, hopefully В²C (and I) can work things out. FWIF I was also banned from geographical NC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

2600:1702:3310:6C30::/64

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.

---

Private Kendall reporting for duty at ANI

• Special:Contributions/2600:1702:3310:6C30:0:0:0:0/64

Admins on ANI --DBigXrayᗙ

Lots of vandalism from this range, adding random CD track lists to random articles. I don't see any good edits in there, so maybe a candidate for a range block. More info and some other IPv4 addresses here: User talk:Binksternet#IP-hopping vandal.

I have not notified the editor, as I don't know how to do that for a range. Please don't shoot me! Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Why would we shoot you? Blocked for a month for obvious disruption. The IP range, that is. Binksternet, you must have quite the archive on those kinds of users. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel like ANI is a cross between a big hammer and a minefield. So far I have always escaped uninjured. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked one month for disparaging ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Please indef Ilwd

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.

---

users

• Ilwd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sozerburk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

pages

• Rueben Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• J Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Spaced Out Magazine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:QT Jazz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Prior discussion with this person is here. To save you clicking:

• The account name was formerly Sommedia and was changed to "Ilwd" after I gave them the corpname notice.

• Every edit they have made has been related to SOM Media.

• They have very obviously evaded scrutiny at AfC. Only admins will be able to see this in the history of the deleted pages but an obvious SPA/sock Sozerburk, moved the Rueben Wood page to mainspace from AfC, and FoCuSandLeArN moved the J Metro page to mainspace. We banned FoCuSandLeArN here at ANI for UPE here, back in January 2017. I don't know if all three accounts are one person or if there is 1 or 2 paid editors + a company representative, or some variation thereof, but this stinks.

• Ilwd has denied paid editing as well as any connection with the company four times (diff, diff, diff, diff)

• This edit makes it appear that the person using this account is more experienced than the contributions of this account would lead one to think.

• This person's responses completely lack credibility. This person is here solely to promote SOM Media (including refspam that remain and everyone can still see, like this) and is obviously evading disclosure and review of their edits. Please indef. The Sozerburk account is stale or I would have taken that to SPI. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support per OP, clearly NOTHERE. GiantSnowman 15:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I blocked indef per NOTTHERE. If there is consensus it was a bad block, any admin can lift it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

User Jytdog Should Be INDEFINITELY Blocked

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 Jytdog has deleted an article on bases of no proper reasonings

• Interaction with this user has been very hostile and has abused his abilities

• Repeatedly harrassment to a user to prove something they have no ties to

• Also making accusations of having multiple accounts that also do not have any relation

Ilwd (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

The 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.

Long term POV-pushing, disruptive behaviour and edit warring

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

---

Filiprino keeps POV-pushing and edit warring at the Ada Colau article over the issue on whether she should be referred as "Spanish" or "Catalan", despite having been blocked roughly one week ago for edit warring on the same article for the exact same issue. During the time of his block, I intervened in the discussion at Talk:Ada Colau#She is Catalan, hence she can also be Spanish to try to reach a consensus, which emerged in that "Spanish" (which was shown to be the preferred by English reliable sources to other proposed terms, such as "Catalan" or "Spanish Catalan") could be used if referenced in the text, which was done, for the sake of WP:VER which had been the central point of the late discussion. However, upon being unblocked, rather than engaging in discussion and trying to sway a consensus in his favour, Filiprino resorted to edit war over the issue once again ([126] [127] [128]). Note that these edits from him were done right after I tried to engage in talk in him (diff for his first comment, diff for mine), yet he went with the change back to "Catalan" anyway despite having been warned of the WP:NPOV issues in his reasoning. He stopped the edit warning after being warned twice in his talk page for this ([129] [130]), but then proceeded to post an enormous wall of text ([131]) which had little to do with the content of the previous discussion (all of it while he kept the edit war on). A second wall of text from him ensued after a reply from me, yet it was mostly filled with new POV assertions (i.e. that using the term Spanish instead of Catalan negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom, among others), straw man fallacies (i.e. pretending that I've used some arguments which I have not used to label them as "flawed") and I have even spotted personal attacking where he tells me that I "ignore science" and calls me "stubborn for ignoring scientists" (??), while also accusing me of not wanting to admit other cultures than the Castilian! You want to se homogeneous Iberian Peninsula! You don't conceive the Catalan nationality! ([132]). Seriously, this has reached the point of absurdity.

This behaviour has been persistent for months on a number of articles, and it has not been unfrequent to see Filiprino involved in some sort of similar disputes in this very same noticeboard with other users, in which he has also shown an ignorance of WP:BOOMERANG and even some WP:OWN behaviour ([133]) or even going as far as to denounce others for the same behaviour he is currently adopting (i.e. that another user was blocked due to edit warring, but once his block has passed, he has reverted the page again without discussion at [134]). This very same behaviour was pointed out to him in his latest unblock request ([135]); all of this shows it is absolutely impossible that he could not know about it by the time he started editing today. I am normally willing to engage in discussion with whoever wishes to resolve a dispute, but I find it as just impossible with this user, who demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge at best (or a serious lack of competence at worst) on WP:NPOV, WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:IDHT at the very least, pretending than his is the only right stance over and over again and that it must be imposed at all costs, even if it means going to continued edit warring, serious POV-pushing and even personal attacks, if not outrightly absurd accusations. Having seen this behaviour from him already too many times in the past, I can only consider this as beyond my efforts to seek a peaceful settlement. I post this here to seek an alternative solution, because this seems impossible in the article's talk page and this relates to the actual user's behaviour rather than the content itself. Impru20^talk 23:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I am not ignorant of WP:BOOMERANG or WP:OWN, but you are entitled to your own opinions. Thank you for your notification. I have to state that I am following the WP:BRD policy. On the matter of using WP:TEXTWALL, well, I have discussed your articles yet you have not provided any insight on the articles I provided. If I have to provide long explanations for my point of view, I will do so. In the talk page of Ada Colau 4 users have participated. Iñaki LL, Crystallized Carbon, Impru20 (you) and me (Filiprino). Impru20 and Crystallized Carbon push the POV of Spanish nationality instead of Catalan nationality. This: using the term Spanish instead of Catalan negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom is false. I have not said that. What I have said is that using Spanish from Catalonia is using Castilian custom and negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom, which is different from "Spanish" negating Catalan nationality. On the matter of ignoring science, is because you don't even provide insight in the articles I have provided you. You just keep referencing Google search number of results instead of discussing WP:RS for the matter of nationality definition (that is my take on the sources you provided for backing up the Spanish nationality of Colau). That's your argument. I provided you two articles talking about Ada Colau and his nationality, and also provided an article from a quite known article of an anthropology journal talking about Spanish and Catalan nationalities and their respective customs, yet you ignore them and fall back to your google search numbers. Filiprino (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, you are not following BRD. You only stopped edit warring when you were warned thrice by three different users that if you kept on the warring you could or would be blocked. BRD means you would have engaged in discussion and stopped warring after the first revert, the later of which you obviously you did not do (and so far, your proposed understanding of what "engaging in discussion" means has been everything but constructive). Half of your replies are straw man fallacies on my arguments, with you trying to depict that I have used arguments I have not; and the other half is just personal accusations and attacks. Some of them even either completely taken out of context, or just outrightly off-topic. All of this while also ignoring the evidence provided throughout the discussion at Talk:Ada Colau before your recent interventions, just for the point of trying to impose your own, particular POV.

Then, you would excuse me, but I invite anyone reading this report to search "using the term Spanish instead of Catalan negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom" in the discussion at Talk:Ada Colau, which this user claims to be false, to check that Filiprino has stated this word by word, literally.

I am not going to discuss anything else, as you are just being outrightly disruptive and manipulative now. Impru20^talk 08:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment Also worth noting is that the POV-pushing is seemingly also being brought into a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Solution proposal ([136] [137]). Impru20^talk 09:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if this does not qualify as personal attacks or Straw man fallacies ... I have pointed out you are not collaborating because you blatantly ignore the sources provided on the topic of national identity definition. If that is not POV pushing tell me what it is. On the other hand, WP:BRD can lead to edit warring and you are not the one to decide if it is edit warring or not. The edits you have put here from the RFC on biography manual of style provide a comment with sources for national definitions. If any opinion you don't like, even in an RFC, you consider it as POV pushing then is impossible to improve articles. Filiprino (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Cherrypicking sources as you do does not mean that others must consider your POV-based arguments as valid (to the contrary, actually). Then, using a RfC as a soapbox to make Catalan nationalist propaganda while trying to bring it off-topic by posting walls of text with your opinion of Catalan history, culture and the such does not help your cause that you are not being POV-ish.

If you think that BRD "can lead to edit warring" then it could be because you are not applying BRD correctly. By definition, BTD implies that you should not restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. On the edit warring issue, maybe you could also ask those warning you on your user talk page about your behaviour on Ada Colau what the definition of "edit warring" is ([138]). If you have doubts you can also read WP:EDITWAR. Impru20^talk 20:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks, a block and an unblock: review requested

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.

---

Yesterday at 8:00 User:GorillaWarfare posted a comment[139] to a Signpost article written by User:Kudpung. I explained why this was a personal attack at 9:30, and asked her to remove the post[140]. Her reply was "I won't be removing it."

After I read this, I removed the PA, only to be reverted by GorillaWarfare nearly immediately. I warned her on her talk page that further reversions would lead to a block, she reverted again anyway, and I blocked her for 24 hours.

The PA was then reinstated by User:Drmies, and the block undone without consultation by User:Fuzheado.

Inbetween, there was discussion at GorillaWarfare's talkpage, in the sections "You are getting things consistently wrong" and "Personal attack". Opinions were divided about nearly everything, with some people politely disagreeing, and some people adding inflammatory[141] or baseless[142][143] statements, which didn't help the discussion one bit.

So, how to proceed? Is the original comment (about Kudpung continuing a misogynistic campign by writing that Signpost article) a personal attack or not? Is repeatedly reinstating that comment despite warnings a blockable offense? Is undoing the block without consultation, or reinstating the comment, a problematic action? Or are the removals of the comment and the block the problematic actions? Review please. Fram (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Note dropped at the talk page of the people I mentioned or linked to here, not to all others who already commented one way or the other. I'll be offline for a few hours, sorry about that. Fram (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a situation that calls for de-escalation, and instead, you have chosen to escalate, Fram. Please ponder why. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

How does one de-escalate a personal attack? Instead of immediately removing it (which I should have done), I asked GorillaWarfare to "Please remove or significantly rephrase your comment at the Signpost". They have not given any indication of being willing to discuss this or consider this, and couldn't accept someone else removing it either. Then what? When you have an editor who is not giving any meaningful answers, doesn't indicate why they think the comment is acceptable and not a personal attack, and isn't willing to let the comment be removed, then with any editor, a block would follow. As it stands, after all this, all we have as justification for the comment is that Kudpung made comments about or against GorillaWarfare two weeks ago, and that somehow this make them fair game to make a totally unrelated Signpost post the battleground to label the post as "misogyny" and the editor as being on a campaign of such. Without any justification or explanation why comments about GorillaWarfare and a Signpost post about the WMF and its CEO would be part of one campaign, or why the latter is misogynistic and not just critical, wrong, too aggressive, whatever... Casting such aspersions on the underlying motives of an editor, and not providing any justification for these aspersions wrt to the page where they were made, is a personal attack and harassment. And this is not acceptable no matter where it comes from. Fram (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

How does one de-escalate a personal attack?

You could start with the question-begging underlying that comment, and perhaps could have considered the possibility that you were wrong? --Calton | Talk 09:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, if GorillaWarfare (or for that matter anyhone else) had perhaps done some effort into explaining why the Signpost page was misogynistic and part of a campaign? Without any evidence for this, it is a personal attack, as described in the PA policy. I recently warned someone that they were posting copyvio's, and that I would remove their articles. They explained to me that I was wrong. I apologized, end of story. I'm not infallible, and have no problem considering that I may be wrong. But not just because someone says you are wrong. Give me some arguments. Fram (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

So basically, no, you're not going to bother with that whole pesky self-reflection business. Maybe you should put down that shovel and stop digging yourself in deeper. --Calton | Talk 10:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the notification, Fram. I'll happily participate in this conversation and will hopefully be fairly available in the next few days to do so (Tuesday on may be a bit fraught due to work engagements but hopefully this won't take four days). I am happy to explain both my interpretation of Kudpung's comments to me in our earlier interaction, or my interpretation of the Signpost article and why I felt it was a continuation of the misogyny shown in Kudpung's earlier comments, but for now I will hold off unless that's requested to avoid clogging this discussion if the interactions are already understood. You know where to find me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen. Also, in my opinion Comment sections should not be censored unless something really egregious is occurring. Edit-warring with an admin over a strong statement, and then blocking them for it, should not have happened. Instead, if it was that much of an issue, a noticeboard discussion (on ANI or AN) should have been opened to determine via community consensus whether the statement was a removable WP:PA or not. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I explained why this was a personal attack...

No, you ARGUED why it was a personal attack. And what Cullen328 said.

So, how to proceed?

Trouting you for admin overreach might be a good start. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm trying to remember a worse block than yours, Fram, and recent memory is failing. You were both edit warring, and an uninvolved admin could have been justified in blocking both you and GW, but there were no personal attacks there, and certainly none that called for you to ignore the rules on edit warring and involvement, which as the other side in the edit war you clearly were. Courcelles (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The initial comment, Misogyny, was unnecessarily provocative and out of place. I would consider it to be a personal attack. Imagine seeing a comment titled "Racism"; "Neo-Nazi advocacy"; or "Transphobia" in the comments section of a piece that you have submitted to Signpost. That's a personal comment about an editor as the sole author of the piece.

If there were concerns about the author's prior behaviour, I think it would have been best to discuss with them directly, or at an appropriate noticeboard. The Signpost commenting section was certainly not the right location in what appeared to be a continuation of an on-going dispute. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either party (GorillaWarfare or Fram) has shown wise conduct here, regardless of whether or not it was a "personal attack". --Rschen7754 06:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• For that matter, neither has Kudpung. --Rschen7754 06:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Fram, as I look over the various discussions, it would seem to me at this point that the issue isn't really whether something certain comments at the SignPost and elsewhere were misogynistic or not. It seems that we've gone far past that now. You've asked for a block review, and I see that as being about whether you were WP:INVOLVED when you made the block of GorillaWarfare. Consultation with a blocking admin is suggested and is common courtesy, but is not required. Given the circumstances, I'm not surprised that you weren't consulted, as your stance in the matter was clear (so no consultation was necessary, they took action knowing your stance). My opinion, fwiw, is that you were most definitely WP:INVOLVED and that using advanced tools was, at best, ill-advised. You were having heated discussion with GorillaWarfare and others on several fronts, discussion where neutral administrators were clearly reading and urging calm. If GorillaWarfare's comments were truly personal attacks, then an uninvolved and neutral administrator should have been the one to make the block. Even if uninvolved administrators weren't actively reading and urging calm, there was certainly no urgent need for a block, and an uninvolved administrator could have been sought out to review the situation. Waggie (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• GorillaWarfare's comment about the Signpost article was linked to the earlier incident with Kudpung, and in particular his response to that. Fram, if we've reached the point where women can't offer the view that something on this site is sexist, we're in worse shape than I thought. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Not to go all 'English major' here, but misogyny and sexism are not the same things: Dictionary.com: Misogyny vs Sexism. Likewise, compare this article has sexist undertones with Misogyny (apparently directed at the author in an on-going dispute, as is clear from the comment in the post).K.e.coffman (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

They didn't offer the view that something is sexist, they offered the view that someone was having a campaing of misogyny, and did not, at any time, explain how the Signpost comment they posted that comment to was in any way evidence of that statement. From WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." Fram (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Fram's blocking of GW was uncalled for (at least, so soon, although I completely understand Fram's perspective in this – that this was a clear personal attack); however, there's no "involved" action here. Fram's comments, removal of GW's comments, etc were purely administrative (see it from the perspective of GW being a normal editor; and not what I suspect most are doing here, considering her as a person they know well and are close to). GW's statements directed at Kudpung's character are silly and childish, and especially seem a distant run off of some campaign she feels a strong need to support and continue. That said, I don't agree at all with how Kudpung placed his initial statements on GW. I would strongly urge all parties (including me, perhaps) to just stop frequenting each other's posts and lay it off for some while. Knowing GW's opinion (that she's not going to take it quietly... or something like that), I can only hope she sees better sense. If she does continue her ill-directed campaign at Kudpung, I would recommend an immediate indefinite re-block of GW until she realizes she cannot walk this path. Lourdes 07:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• It's not ideal to review this situation without the context. My thoughts on the original comment was placed here ([144]); to me, GorillaWarfare's comment at Signpost made it clear that her original comment ([145]) to Kudpung a while ago was neither a "minor point", and had the explicit implication that Kudpung was "being misogynistic". In the Signpost comment, it was unclear that whether GorillaWarfare's comment was directed at the comment or the editor; I am fairly certain it is the latter, but one needs to acknowledge that how her Signpost comment was phrased can be easily and reasonably interpreted as being directed toward the editor. Now I do think Kudpung has overreacted on several of these occasions, but to put myself in his shoes, I think it takes extraordinary ill-faith to assume that he was being misogynistic in this comment when he was in the middle of a discussion about combating sexism in RfA. Alex Shih (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

And onto to the administrative actions that were taken here. The idealistic premise is that all editors and administrators should be held equally, and be held accountable for their words, conduct and behaviour. But that is not the pragmatic approach in reality, so to echo the comments by Cullen328 and Softlavender, the only approach here should have been to de-escalate the situation, and to solicit community feedback before taking extraordinary and unilateral administrative actions. My opinion is that without a strong community consensus formed after a wider discussions at noticeboards, any similar administrative action should not be taken (this is a general comment that applies to all similar extraordinary situations). No comment on the subsequent development, as they were inconsequential due to the legitimacy of the initial action being contested. Alex Shih (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Kudpung's not a misogynist. Not by a long shot. Kudpung jumps in to fight sexism and bias, not create it. That this is up for debate, genuinely makes me sad. :( Mr rnddude (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This was a bad block. Discussion clearly showed at the time that there was not a consensus that GW's comment was a personal attack (I'm not interested here in whether it was or it wasn't, that isn't the point), which means that Fram's actions are not covered by the edit warring exemptions, which are only for things are clearly and unambiguously inappropriate, making Fram WP:INVOLVED. Discussion was ongoing, the focus of the dispute was very small and the involved parties are all experienced Wikimedians in (generally) good standing so there was absolutely zero risk of any disruption spreading and no other reason at all for urgency. How many times is it now that we've been here (and at other venues) because Fram has needlessly escalated a situation when they should have been de-escalating it? How many more times does that need to happen before they get the message? Thryduulf (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • When there are policy violations (like PAs, or BLP vios, or copyvios), even when there is no general agreement that they are violations, we remove them, then discuss them, and if the consensus is that they were not policy violations but acceptable comments, then we reinstate: not the other way around. I gave GorillaWarfare plenty of chances to de-escalate the situation, but she clearly wasn't interested in either de-escalation or explanation. Upholding policies doesn't make me involved. Fram (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• This is... not ideal. The comment is defensible, and escalating the whole thing is rather unhelpful. You blocked an administrator and former arbitrator based on your own interpretation of a comment without any consultation? Really? What did you think was going to happen? Bad block, good unblock, now discuss it in your normal calm way please. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't care when blocking whether someone is an admin / former arbitrator or not. Leeway may be given for a new editor who doesn't understand the rules yet, but apart from that no distinction should be made between non-admins making PAs and admins or former arbs making them. Fram (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Per Guy, above. It was clearly an involved block by Fram, if you can't see that Fram, you know the way to hand in your bit. Nick (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • How was I involved? I gave an editor a warning about a policy violation, to give them the chance to undo the violation. They declined (and neither did they explain why they declined or why it wasn't a policy violation). So I removed the personal attack (removing a personal attack made by editor X doesn't make one involved with editor X). They reversed my removal. I warned them that further such actions would lead to a block. Warning an editor doesn't make one involved. They reversed the removal of the PA again. I blocked. What in this sequence makes me somehow involved? (Never mind the rather illogical conclusion that if I can't see that it wsa an involved block, I should resign the tools. No, if I had knowingly made an involved block, that might be grounds to resign.) Fram (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I gave an editor a warning about a policy violation...
    • Nope. You ACCUSED an editor of a policy violation -- against multiple editors telling you it wasn't -- and then enforced your own interpretation using admin tools. Since you don't seem to understand this very basic point, maybe your admin bit should be removed until you do. --Calton | Talk 09:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Never mind the rather illogical conclusion that if I can't see that it wsa an involved block, I should resign the tools
    • I have rarely seen such a strong example of motivated reasoning. Have you heard of "Competence is Required"? "Lack of self-awareness", strangely, isn't much of a mitigating factor. --Calton | Talk 10:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yikes. I'm not touching this! Okay, fine, I'll bite:

• Fram should not have repeatedly removed the comment, or blocked, without consulting other admins, given that Drmies had disputed whether it was a valid PA for removal.
• Lourdes is correct. Removal of personal attacks is a legitimate admin action, so the "edit war" over it shouldn't render them involved. I can't see any other way of objectively interpreting this particular point.
• I don't see how anyone can unequivocally state that accusing someone on-Wiki of "misogyny" is not, at least arguably, a personal attack.

• But, if it's happening between two highly respected, veteran administrators in good standing, we're probably not dealing with a petty behavioral issue that is correctable via standard blocking.

• GW's comment was unfiltered and aggressive well beyond normal Talk Page standards, but so was the article she was responding to, which itself could be reasonably construed as a personal attack. (To be clear, I 100% endorse freedom of speech in the press, including The Signpost)

• We can not reasonably enforce a conduct standard for the comments section that isn't enforced for the article itself. Any editor should be within their rights to make an equally unfiltered and aggressive comment in disapproval of the article.

• However, if that's going to be the case, Kudpung equally deserves the right of response, and the immediate threat to block him from TNT was excessive, counterproductive escalation as well (they did not even provide a policy-based reason for the block they threatened).

• Two administrators with serious interpersonal—not behavioral—issues need to be able to discuss their shit, even if it gets heated, ugly or unpleasant. Trying to "conduct policy enforcement" on them or forcibly separate them like children won't help.

• Bumbling, aggressive, heavy-handed admining, warnings, admonitions, threats, blocks, side-choosing, and any other behavior from the peanut gallery, admin-or-not, that only serves to "jump in" to the dispute, and/or further escalate the situation, won't help.

• If you're not going to leave calm, thoughtful comments aimed at deescalation like Worm, GRubin, or Cullen tried to, the least you can do to actually help, is to not add fuel to the fire.

• Admonishments primarily to those users who only escalated the situation. They are not limited to Fram and they who know who they are.

• GW and Kudpung need to mutually steer clear of each other from now on, or take their conflict off-wiki where it will not disrupt the project, until they can bury the hatchet and come to a mutual respect. No exceptions.

• The "full history" doesn't matter. Grudging between admins is unacceptable.
• Whether us observers feel that Kudpung is actually a misogynist or not, he still needs to respect that he made GW feel that way. That's the primary issue. Not that she spoke up about it, and not Fram’s intervention.
• I think all of us, Kudpung included, would encourage any women on this project to speak up if they feel they're experiencing or witnessing misogyny, intended or not. It may not have been the correct forum, but GW should not be blamed for speaking up.
• This is not an argument that either party needs to "win". Kudpung should be open-minded to GW's experience and perception, and try to repair the damage done through civil discourse and respectful consideration. If Kudpung makes an effort, GW will, I'm sure, reciprocate in kind.

• Even if this doesn't make them friends, it's the bare minimum resolution that will be acceptable. Swarm ♠ 09:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to ask Kudpung to tone down his Signpost writing. There's no need to so repeatedly put the boot in towards someone. We get it, you don't like Katherine Maher. Fish+Karate 09:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Ugh, no-one comes out of this brilliantly, do they? The Signpost article is frankly poor (and this appalling comment by Kudpung to GW appears to have been forgotten and probably led to the following issue), GW probably shouldn't have restored the disputed sentence once it had been removed, the block is ... well, "defensible" is the best thing I can say about it, and everyone knows that's code for "not ideal", and Fuzheado reversed it without discussing it with the blocking admin. However, I don't think there's anything else to do than suggest that the participants steer clear of each other for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• I too have been following this whole sorry saga in the background, and I don't think anyone involved here has made the situation better. I don't think the "misogyny" comment was needed, but the block was not appropriate, especially as its suggestion was disputed by several others. As above, the solution here is for GorillaWarfare and Kudpung to not interact with each other, or refer to each other in any way, implied or directly. As for Fram, at least a wet trout is needed. Aiken D 10:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• If we get could the major protagonists to sign up" to Swarm's assessment—in the spirit of codification? (but not in the sense of a logged action, more as acknowledgment)—then this can be swiftly closed. Frankly, and not to put too fine a point on the matter, Swarm has said the last word on the subject, and everything else is just going to be adhoc commentary from the peanut gallery. IMHO of course (including, I don't doubt—me!), pace those who have previously commented, of course. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:NPA - "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." Accusations about other editors behaviour without providing evidence is a clear personal attack. Then reinstating it, without evidence, is still a personal attack. Regardless of if you agree with it. Dont like it? Propose to rewrite the policy. Special treatment like this is why people complain about the super mario effect. If this had been anyone else they would have blocked and given little further thought. Admins are expected to know and obey policies and frankly the convolutions going through above in order to excuse flouting policy is just rewarding bad behaviour. You want to accuse someone of being misogynistic? You line up evidence as per the policy and provide it in the form of diffs at a relevant noticeboard or to arbcom. You want to turn ENWP into another online gender-battleground by making drive-by comments? There's probably a mailing list for that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• And lest anyone think I am one-sided here, this should serve as an example why the signpost should be nuked. When it was reporting on wiki-related issues it was fine. After a succession of editors have turned into their pet loudhailer, its just a magnet for crap like this. If you want to let other wikipedians know what they may have missed, great, if you want to tell other wikipedians what your opinion is on <insert editor's personal gripe they want to bitch about here> go start a blog. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• This was a terrible block, and the inability and/or refusal (so far) to understand why it was a terrible block makes me wonder if a new ArbCom case evaluating Fram's suitability to make such blocks would be the logical next step. If Fram can assure everyone here that he understands why this was a bad block and that he will never make such a block again, I think that would (probably) obviate the need for such a case. 28bytes (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Bad block: Not only was that claimed PA substantively in dispute at the time, and Fram was at the center of that dispute (commenting on comments and sign-post articles is not PA, but where there is substantial ongoing disagreement, it means there is without consensus admin action), Fram was INVOVLED in edit war, and thus INVOVLED in winning a dispute. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Sorry to say I have to agree with both 28bytes and with Alanscottwalker. Might make the basis of a useful question to candidates at WP:RFA.Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think GW assuring everyone they are not going to make personal attacks on other editors would negate the need for an arbcom case as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what GW does, does not, should or should not do, this individual dispute is not nearly worthy of arbcom attention on its own. However it is yet another example of many admin actions made by Fram that are at the very least questionable and it is almost certain that there will come a time the Committee examines this as part of a case investigating his continued suitability for the administrator role. Whether there is a wider pattern centred around the Signpost is not something I have looked into. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

GW did not abuse admin tools, which is what is at issue here. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have to agree with User:Alanscottwalker, User:28bytes and others: this is yet another moment of Fram showing a lack of judgement when using admin tools -- its at the point where they should be rescinded. Sadads (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Having only become aware of this situation this morning, I agree largely with what Swarm detailed above. I'll add that I don't see any personal attack in GorillaWarfare's comment that Fram referred to, only fair criticism, and while you might disagree with her criticism, Fram ordering her to remove it was bullying and GW was right not to concede to it. I'm also going to add that a male administrator responding so aggressively to a female editor's observation of misogyny is especially horrendous. That said, I do believe that Fram acted in what he believed to be good faith and the project's best interest, but it was a bad block and it was right to have been undone and the comment restored. From what's been presented here, I don't see how this makes him INVOLVED, but it was a poor exercise of admin authority. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems like Fram might need a better filter.

-EEng

• One more echoing Cullen's "de-escalation called for" comment. There are so many different stages this could have stopped at before blocking a current admin and recent arbitrator that this is like a set of stairs. Every single participant here is (a) experienced and (b) well meaning and trying to improve the encyclopedia. Surely that means we can reach a peaceful resolution? Swarm's proposal is excellent (I wrote a long statement, then realized I was writing almost exactly what they wrote, just not as well), but even if it's not accepted, can we please stop before this reaches WP:RFAR? --GRuban (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, that's the thing. Fram is not hearing what the majority of admins and experienced editors are saying here. He says he wants a review, but he doesn't accept the results of that review. The way to avoid an RFAR is to take in what is being said here, and to not repeat the unilateral decision-making, edit-warring, and block (judge, jury, and executioner). The pattern has come up repeatedly in the past couple of years, and this is possibly the most extreme example (since the matter was disputed, and the block was of a respected long-term administrator and recent arbitrator). Softlavender (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• This. This right here is why I have absolutely no aspirations to be an admin. If becoming an admin would help me tamp down the drama so people could get on with editing, I'd be all for it. But this sort of thing just goes to show that becoming an admin just requires me to deal with drama not just over editing, but over using the damn tools. It shows me that my peers would not be the most dedicated Wikipedians, but just more Wikipedians who are just as prone to fighting as everyone else.

For what it's worth, according to WP:NPA, it's not a personal attack if evidence is offered. Per common fucking sense, if that evidence is reasonable, it counts. The link GW made in the posting sure as hell looked like some misogyny to me. But I don't know for sure that it was, so I'm not about to overlook the fact that there seemed to be absolutely no point to GW posting it where she did.

The rest of you went to the tools and posted your thoughts here like you were the final word on the matter, almost without exception. Yet you all damn well knew that you weren't.

You want to know what you should do? Everybody should fucking drop it, and Kudpung and GW should avoid each other and stay busy working. That way, the next time they run in to each other, it's at least possible that they'll be in agreement, which can make patching up hurt feelings a lot easier. In other words, stop feeding the fucking fires. Everybody gets so caught up in seeing the ensuing drama from this stuff as a symptom of a problem that needs solving, that nobody stops to think that it's the drama itself that is the problem. GW's and Kudpung's hurt feelings don't matter one little bit to WP. And neither do Fram's, or Calton's or Swarm's or FnK's, or mine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If your point was to avoid drama, your post certainly did not achieve that. This isn't about drama; it's a simple matter of WP:INVOLVED. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Having read this this morning I have to agree with everyone above that this was a bad block, GW took an offense to the article and wrote her opinion and so it should've been left at that, As a few editors disagreed with it being a personal attack Fram should've stepped away or atleast let the discussion continue instead of wading in with their size 12s, Unblock GW & end this silliness. –Davey2010^Talk 14:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Just for the record, GW has already been unblocked. And while we're talking about ungraceful segues, I endorse what Swarm has stated above. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ah thank you User:78.26. –Davey2010^Talk 14:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Swarm and Ivanvector. However, I have a pretty high bar for what constitutes a personal attack, so I probably would have read right over it and not given it a second thought. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• None of this had to happen. Even if an admin isn't involved, it hardly vindicates a bad block. GAB^gab 14:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• The original comment, the block, the unblock, the comments on usertalk pages, the comments in this thread... there are additional communicative steps and measures of caution that shoulda coulda woulda been taken all around. Let's call it a day. The only thing that should really happen at this point is for GW and Kudpung to hash things out a bit more, without a crowd doing the work of making it a spectacle. (Though I appreciate that Kudpung has good reasons for not being able to engage in the immediate future). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've been mulling what to say all day, but I think Swarm and Mr Pants have pretty much said it already. So I'll give you the short version: the major players in this dispute should apologise to each other if they can (I realise you can't force an apology but if you can offer one off your own back, that's great) and then go about their business in separate corners of the encyclopedia. That's pretty much it. I've got common ground with Kudpung in music, and common ground with GorillaWarfare in cats, so if I can be a sounding board for the pair of you to resolve your differences, I'll offer that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Having looked at the evidence, I'd say one would have to reach pretty far to claim that GW's comment was nothing more than a personal attack. I don't feel she owes anyone an apology. Kudpung and Fram, however... Icarosaurvus (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Ay caramba.

  It is indeed a misogynistic canard that women lack executive ability and even aptitude, and the criticism in the Signpost piece overlays almost perfectly with that canard.

  Kudpung's initial and secondary reactions to GorillaWarfare's requests about how to refer to her, were inappropriate. Especially the secondary ones about withdrawing from WiR, which were very bad judgement.

  The WMF does have issues of organizational competence. Those criticisms are rightly aimed at the top. (I wish the post had also discussed the board and also discussed the culture and structure of the WMF (the macro structure as well as job descriptions), but criticism of the ED is appropriate). Yes, the current ED is a woman. But if I read the Signpost piece and swap genders, it seems to me to be as valid.

  I understand GorillaWarfare's post at the Signpost, but it was in my view poor judgement. I have seen organizations tear themselves apart with uncarefully handled discussions about internal systemic bias or bias of specific people. That post is very much less than careful.

  I understand Fram's block, but it was also unwise. The unblock was good.

  I urge GorillaWarfare to reconsider her post at the Signpost. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going to take this opportunity to serve mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say, since I have a bit of a stake in this (or steak, with the mustard!). I was at the dentist this morning so I missed the party.

  I do NOT see how Fram was INVOLVED making this block. An admin removes something, an admin warns, an admin blocks: that is standard operating procedure. To my knowledge Fram was no party in the original discussion(s); thus, they were perfectly in their right to make the block--in principle.

  It was, of course, a terrible block, for a few reasons--diplomatically, since nothing good could come from it, and policy-wise, since it was quite obvious that there was no agreement among admins (certainly not Fram and me, never mind GW, who is also a longtime, experienced admin, someone who has seen so much shit, and has had so much shit thrown at her, that she is perfectly capable of judging whether something is a PA or not) that there was a personal attack. Fram, who I respect greatly, can tell me I'm wrong about that a thousand times but that doesn't change the fact that therefore it was simply an unwise block. I note that the discussion here indicates I was not crazy to say it wasn't a personal attack. And I also note that Fuzheado wasn't raked over the coals, which I think is a good thing: Fuzheado, if I make an unwise block, don't wait for me to respond--do the right thing and unblock. Finally, one can argue that GorillaWarfare was unwise in reinstating what an(other) admin thought was a personal attack. I won't, and I appreciate her persistence. Finally, thank you to Cullen328 and others who have spoken calming words. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Opinion column as a Ref for Bio related to a suicide ?

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

---

Recently, a New Zealand journalist Greg Boyed died. If you had any experience with NZ media, it was clear he took his own life, but as is is also the norm, none of the sources directly said that instead saying stuff like he died unexpectedly and was suffering from depression and with ample links to helplines. Recently I noticed as the main story on nzherald.co.nz (one of the major news websites in NZ) the top story was this [146] which is an opinion column on the Bay of Plenty Times (owned by the same company) which directly mentions that he died by suicide. Since I expect someone is going to want change our article (there have been attempts in the past but without sources), any opinion on whether this is sufficient sourcing for a WP:BDP case? In many ways the claim is not particularly contentious, as I said anyone with experience with NZ media has know it since the day is death was first reported. But opinion columns tend to be iffy for BLP statements of fact. Nil Einne (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there any rush to report it? Can't we wait till we have a coroner's report? --Tarage (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is this discussion here? You should be doing this on the article talk page. If you don't need someone blocked or banned or a page protected or something like that, this is not the venue. Please take this discussion to the correct place.--Jayron32 23:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

• Just to reinforce Jayron32's post: remember, ANI is where we comment on contributors, not on content. EEng 03:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

​Why isn't this mandatory instruction right there at the top of this page? :D Lourdes 00:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It's one of the secret facts we use to identify and marginalize the uninitiated. EEng 00:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz continuing personal attacks

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.

---

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) just called Sandstein an incompetent and corrupt piece of shit[147] because of his work at WP:AE.

Last month he was blocked for personal attacks at AE and his refusal to strike them for 31 hours by GoldenRing. He used his alternative account MShabazz (talk · contribs) to make a personal attack on the blocking admin: You're almost as stupid as Sandstein, with your attitude that "only the editor who is factually wrong is being disruptive". What a bunch of fucking morons [148] The block was not extended for this.

Similarly, he reverted Icewhiz's standard AE notification (which he is required to post) as "vandalism"[149] so he's clearly being toxic to everyone that has to interact with him because of AE.

Considering Malik Shabazz was desysopped for personal attacks in 2015 by the ArbCom[150] and has been blocked for them several times, including revoking talk page access, it's clearly a long-term pattern issue. So, are egregious personal attacks alright as long as he has a little pause between them, or is it time to show the door? --Pudeo (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Pudeo - Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that Sandstein's recent comments at AE have driven another editor to retire in what can easily be described as bullying by an admin who lacks even a basic knowledge of the topic area. I feel any actual investigation here needs to take a hard look at the process that led to Malik losing his temper. I am far from being a fan of Malik, but this is utter bullshit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end - If you feel that an investigation is needed regarding Sandstein's conduct, you should open a new ANI discussion, state your concerns in-depth, and request one - we'll be happy to objectively look into the matter if you do this. This discussion here is focused on Malik Shabazz's civility; a separate discussion regarding the issue you're mentioning is what should be done so that concerns and independent events are not diluted into the same report. Let me know if you have questions or concerns and I'll be happy to talk with you about them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that when an ANI report is opened, we look at all sides and all participants in what led up to the problem. We don't only consider the actions of the editor complained of and tell people to take consideration of other involved parties elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee - I took another look at Only in death does duty end's concerns. I initially believed that his concerns and the concerns raised on this ANI report were about two different events that happened to involve both parties. I see now that I was mistaken; I've redacted my response above. Thanks for responding and pushing back at my suggestion (which was incorrect) :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end - I also owe you my apologies for the incorrect assessment I made and the response that followed. I hope that you didn't interpret my response as an attempt to "pass you down the line" or that I wasn't taking your concerns with the same level of care as the concerns raised by Pudeo - it was absolutely not my intent at all. Please forgive my stupidity... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Pudeo - Both of Malik Shabazz's accounts are blocked for 72 hours for his unacceptable comment containing a clear personal attack. This block only takes the uncivil comment into account; a further investigation regarding Malik Shabazz's conduct may find that a block of a longer duration is necessary. Any administrator is welcome to modify or extend the block I placed upon both accounts - just let me know that you did so and what you found. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I looked further into this and found that the hostility towards Sandstein has been going on atleast since May. Malik Shabazz made an uncivil AfD comment about "did your parents drop you on your heads as infants?"[151] and Sandstein warned him for using the personal attack in WP:ARBPIA area[152]. Shabazz reverted him with the comment "taking out the trash"[153]. AE topic banned Shabazz from Israeli-Palestine topics for 6 months because of the comment, and Sandstein notified him. Shabazz removed this notification with the summary of "go to hell".[154] He then made the following comment at AN with his alt-account: I would sooner jump off the Empire State Building than grovel before a "good German" like Sandstein[155]. He refused to remove the "good German" description because of "if the shoe fits..."[156]. Then there are the two newer personal attacks mentioned in my first post. So this is pretty extensive already. --Pudeo (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

What brought you to User talk:Nishidani in the first place? I thought we had rules against following editors to instigate conflict. nableezy - 16:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That is both tendentious and irrelevant. It's also silly, as the answer is almost certainly related to follow-up of the WP:ARE thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

What exactly was there for Pudeo, not an admin who can do anything with an AE thread or follow up on it, to follow up there? I appreciate your answering for Pudeo, I am genuinely curious as to when it became acceptable to troll through people's user talk pages to bring attacks against third parties to ANI? nableezy - 16:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not willing to entertain your argument that unacceptable comments can by excused by claiming that anyone that acts on them is engaging in WP:HOUNDING. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thats cute, but the question wasnt directed to you in the first place, and it ignores that this happened on a third parties user talk page, a user talk page the reporting user has never before edited and would likely not have in their watchlist. Its a good thing you arent the arbiter of these things though, isnt it? nableezy - 16:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy - It's not hounding for a user to run into a discussion or another editor, take a look at the contributions and edits for that editor, and then report problematic edits or violations of policy that they find. If you call that "hounding", I'd be guilty of it a million times over and every time I've investigated a suspicious user, an LTA, sock puppet, dug further after reverting an editor who added vandalism or made malicious and disruptive edits to the project, or even looked into someone's contributions when they apply for user rights. Looking into one's contributions or the edits and comments made to a discussion is completely in one's free will to do. An example of hounding would be if you and I had a heated argument and uncivil discussion over a dispute on an article, and I then began following you to every discussion you participate in afterwards in order to confront you, inhibit your work, engage in battleground conduct, and attack your character as an argument. Or I began following you to each and every article you make edits to (even minor ones) in order to revert them all and for reasons I come up with by gaming the system. Hounding is the intentional and malicious act of following you around in order to engage in disruptive editing in places you participate in with the sole purpose of harassing you and making your "Wikipedia life" hell. What Pudeo did was absolutely not hounding, and it's disappointing to see that you're not giving him any benefit of the doubt and instead making the assumption that his intentions are malicious :-(. He did the right thing by filing an ANI report over what was clearly an unacceptable and uncivil comment made toward another editor, and we shouldn't be quick to jump to assumptions or assume bad faith like that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I dont think it was hounding so much as looking for a problem without having a reason to. I agree, "piece of shit" is not an acceptable thing to call another person on Wikipedia. But. This happened in the immediate aftermath of the person that was directed at having made a closure of an AE thread with an implicit threat towards another editor, a threat that said editor has at least momentarily (one might hope) would lead him to retire. This same admin has a history of imposing sanctions on Malik without discussion and in ways that have aggravated what in my view is a shameful moment in the WP:A* namespace, from ANI to AC, in which a years long productive and widely respected (see his RFA for both the nominator and the view of the community on him) was successfully goaded by a sock-puppet of a user who has what I think the notable distinction of having two sockpuppets in the same arbitration case into losing his temper and his bit. That benefit of the doubt you speak of was never given to Malik. I see an editor upset with what he sees as a long-term pattern of misconduct by an admin, and one who, rightfully in my view, doesnt actually see any avenue to address that misconduct. And he vented that frustration, poorly perhaps, on a user talk page. Where it could have died among the 4 people involved in the discussion without the need for a third party that has no real familiarity with the histories involved playing hall monitor and making a petition for a citizens arrest here. nableezy - 22:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy - Boy oh boy... I'm realizing that there are more and more layers I need to peel back regarding this discussion and issue as a whole... I appreciate that you understand that the comment was uncivil and certainly not acceptable - thank you :-). But, as people have stated here - there's a lot more that needs to be addressed than just the uncivil comment that was found. This is why I imposed only a 72 hour block pending further investigation into the matter entirely. The question I have is... shoot, where do we even begin? :-/ ... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

What brought me to his userpage? I follow WP:AE and the report on Nishidani was closed there. Simple as that. --Pudeo (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• He probably should not have called Sandstein a piece of shit, Ill grant you all that, but are we really not allowed to criticize admins as admins? If one thinks an admin is incompetent they should do what? Sit on their hands? And seriously, why does anybody care what is said on a user's talk page? Yall have entirely too much time on your hands if you are reporting people for attacks on other parties on pages you have no reason to even see. nableezy - 16:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  He should itemize and put forward for discussion the actions he thought were taken in error. --Jayron32 16:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Youve been here a while, surely you recall a Malik Shabazz that was a real asset to this project. I was on a hiatus of sorts when this slide towards I dont know I guess dissatisfaction would be the most civil way of putting with the project on his part began. But do you not think that it would be better if actions were taken to arrest and reverse that slide took place rather than accelerate it? Everything that began with Malik, from his losing his temper and the bit with it, began with a NoCal100 sock incessantly baiting him, racist overtones and all, and nobody doing a thing about it. And from that Wikipedia took one of the better admins on here and is now continuing its quiet march of him out the door, with a user going to a third parties talk page to report him and ask if it is time to do exactly that. I realize I didnt reply to your suggested course of action, so for that Ill just say I agree with Malik on the futility of that course of action. nableezy - 16:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

He may have been an asset to the project, but that doesn't mean he isn't being a net liability today. I agree that we should be taking actions that encourage editor retention, but I'm also not fully aware of every detail of every interaction that Malik and the other principals here have been part of over the many years. If an admin does something incorrectly, there are ways to go about getting that corrected. Calling them names or using abusive and inflammatory language are not those ways. If Malik is going to do that, then Malik is not going to be allowed to continue to do that. --Jayron32 17:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

There are times where that is true, as far as ways to go about getting that corrected, but in the specific realm of AE that is made as difficult as possible. I see Malik's anger here as something that is justified but resolvable. And we should be doing what is possible to help create such a resolution. nableezy - 19:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So you are okay with the "corrupt" part N? Please read WP:NPA again MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes I am, as far as a statement made on a user talk page. Do I think it applies to Sandstein? No, as I said on that user talk page. Should it result in a block? No. But however you want to classify admins, as a type of police, or a ruling class, or whatever, they certainly have greater privileges here, and with that, in any non-fascist organization, should allow for criticism of the use of those privileges. Including calling them "corrupt". nableezy - 16:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• At least as important a question to be resolved is whether Sandstein should be involved in matters of Arbitration Enforcement. I've been voting No Confidence on his actions there for years. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  Count me in. Unfortunately, it seems that WP:CIR does not apply to admins. No such user (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for a longer block

I don't like these kind of !vote type of things, but since the discussion doesn't have a direction otherwise, I'm proposing a longer block than the initial 72 hrs one by Oshwah (who said that it was based on this one comment, and a longer block is possible on examining the pattern). Block log: Desysopped for personal attacks in 2015. Topic banned from WP:ARBPIA for 6 months for personal attacks in May 2018[157]. Blocked for 31 hrs for personal attacks at WP:AE on 6 July and then attacking the admin who did the block[158]. Then blocked for 2 weeks by AE on July 30[159] for incivil comments again and now this. There is a pattern of incivility and he just seems to be doubling down on his attacks on admins who enforce the sanctions. A longer block, atleast 1 month or 3 months is in order. So, support --Pudeo (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• oppose - literally no reason for a proposal like this. Malik has a problem with a specific user, that problem should be discussed and worked it out, ideally between the two of them. Something that is not part of the solution is a third party going through a user talk page for reasons that escape me to report an attack on somebody else entirely. Sanstein is a grown up, if he feels attacked he can say so. But, again, ideally this is worked out with a discussion, not a rather absurd length of a block for a comment on a user talk page. nableezy - 19:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • AE is a public venue and his attacks have been going on since May (see my post about the background[160]). It is increasingly disruptive for everyone if egregious personal attacks are normalized and the AE board's atmosphere made toxic. Doesn't matter if the comments have been made on talk pages after the AE threads have been closed. --Pudeo (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The attack you are complaining about here was not at AE. It was at a user talk page. Im well aware of your previous post, thank you very much. I will restate, a comment made on a user talk page that not even the supposedly aggrieved party has cared to complain about has no business even being brought to ANI, much less being used to propose a months long block. You literally went searching for a problem here. nableezy - 19:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I do not think we have such entity as a "community imposed block". If you want to propose a community ban or a community imposed topic ban, you should start the discussion accordingly. If you find Oshwah's action inappropriate you should go to WP:AN and ask uninvolved admin to review the block. But voting for a longer (or, for that matter, shorter) block does not make sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't find it in appropriate, he himself said a longer block could be made by another admin. This would be a community discussion for that, if any admin wants to do it based on it. I'm not an expert on ANI policy, but indef block !votes seem to be fairly frequent. Feel free to close this subsection if I'm using incorrect terminology. --Pudeo (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Let's wait to see what happens in 3 days first. I'd like to extend more than a little grace to someone who wasn't shown any real grace back when he really needed it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although I will never use the language that Malik used, I share his anger at the way Sandstein handled that AE case. I think that Sandstein's threat to act against consensus on Nishidani's talk page was wandering into de-sysop territory. I've always been reluctant to criticize administrators who (unlike me, usually) undertake the difficult and thankless work on the noticeboards, but there are limits. And the system is fundamentally broken, with "behavior" taking center stage while "building an excellent encyclopedia" is pushed to the background. So bad editors who doggedly push their personal POV with NOPV and V violations every day while being careful with the language and revert rules are allowed to go about their business unmolested, while those good editors who (like Nishidani) express frustration at this state of affairs are sanctioned. Zero^talk 01:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Would better see how things go from now on. Excelse (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We all get heated, from a quick review of his/her last 100 edits, Malik seems to be a great editor in a tough topic area who sometimes lets his/her passion get the best of him/her. Maybe keeping the block as is and applying WP:Rope would be a better course of action. JC7V-constructive zone 19:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose One of the greatest weaknesses of Wikipedia is the unequal distribution of justice. As someone said: "On Wikipedia everything is allowed, .....and nothing is allowed." I do not condone Maliks use of words, but frankly, the goading he has been subjected to (for long with no Admin intervention) has been far worse. And that is the shame of Wikipedia, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Concur with Floquenbeam and Huldra. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

DRV 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.

---

Per this discussion please can an independent admin review the close of the DRV for Kane Tanaka. The closing admin Fish and karate has ignored blatant canvassing. Thanks. What a shit final edit to have to make. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Spartaz: I had a look. In my view, the DRV should be closed as "endorse". Your close of the AfD was within policy (I personally would probably have closed it as "No consensus - go and play elsewhere" but that's me) and an acceptable compromise and reasonable admin action in my view. The DRV should not be "AfD round 2" so all of the "overturn it meets GNG" comments are a bit wide of the mark and should have been geared more towards policy and procedure. A comment like "overturn to NC, the AfD was full of conflicting views between keep / delete / redirect and the arguments got ridiculous" would have been fine, but nobody really said that. Is that enough or do you want me to fill out paperwork elsewhere? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, when Spartaz disregarded numerous keep !votes while closing the AfD in question, did any of those keep !voters throw a tantrum and quit because their contributions are clearly neither valued nor respected? [161] Lepricavark (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I simply looked at the AfD and DRV and gave my opinion, nothing more or less. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have made that a directly reply to you as it wasn't really relevant to what you said. Lepricavark (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The irony that these comments are from one of the canvassed voters is too startling not to be highlighted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ritchie, the fact that you would have closed the original move a different way shows unequivocally that the result of the DRV was correct. There was sufficient doubt in the matter that a no consensus is the correct outcome. That's not to say the Spartaz's close was in itself wrong, admins have the prerogative to assess the debate as they see it, but the whole point of the review process is for those who feel it could have been closed differently to air their views. In this case, there was a consensus at DRV that there was doubt about the close, and Fish+K was correct to call it that way and restore the article. This is not in anyway a reflection on Spartaz or their competence, it is simply due process. I have been on the wrong end of these myself on occasion and it can seem. Annoying, but in the end the community's consensus come first.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I get annoyed with comments like "clearly a WP:IDONTLIKEIT supervote, by someone with a bias against longevity articles no less" - why can't people accept the other side of the debate might have a point as well? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite phlegmatic about being overruled but closing that I supervoted is to me a massive accusation of bad faith against my judgement and my integrity. That F&k doesn't know how to close a DRV properly, thinks no one who was canvassed should have their votes discarded and accused me of assuming bad faith when I asked them about their close simply reinforces that this DRV should be reclosed by someone else. That needs a consensus at ANI - which is what I'm asking for. The outcome I don't care about. Just do it properly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

As one of the editors who was of the view that the closure should be endorsed at DRV, I believe, like Ritchie333 above, that Fish and karate acted in error when they closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 14 as "overturn". That said, Spartaz, resigning in protest at this kind of minor and routine disagreement isn't really a sensible action to take. Sandstein 20:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment but I only used the bit for closing AFDs. Wikipedia is supposed to be a hobby and help me relax. I'm not going to close AFDs anymore because I don't find getting angry about stupid shit the slightest bit relaxing. Ergo, I don't need to remain an admin. This isn't the project I joined in 2006 anymore. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at this DRV and most "overturn" arguments in the DRV were "if you count heads you have a consensus for keeping" which is squarely at odds with the deletion policy and the wiki-policy definition of consensus none of which allows mere headcounts as a standard for consensus. A bunch of commenters want to overturn because "people were arguing that GNG is met" and that carries more weight but against the counterargument "no, all coverage was routine and that was pointed out in the AFD" that probably does not justify an "overturn to keep" close. If I were to close the DRV I'd probably close it as "no consensus to overturn" or "overturn to no consensus" (depending on how one wants to weigh the canvassing concerns or the debate on GNG suitability of some sources, such as the ones mentioned by Insertcleverphrasehere) and certainly without the accusation of supervoting (not only there is no evidence, a number of !keep arguments aren't addressing the notability concerns so the AFD closer might be justified in ignoring a number of their arguments). In general, both the DRV and AFD suffer from "the other side is biased/keepist/deletionist" personally directed comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the article should be kept, but that's beside the point. Regarding the DRV itself, it should have been closed as "no consensus to overturn". At least in my opinion. To a certain extent !supervoting is inevitable when closing a contentious AfD, because as individuals certain arguments hold more weight to our particular pattern of logical thinking. As a general rule we usually close things as our counterparts would because of policy, and where that fails, precedent. Yet there remain tough cases where personal judgement comes into play by necessity. I can see why F&K might close as "overturn to keep", even if I think it's incorrect, but I would gently ask him to remove the statement of !supervoting. I assume that it wasn't intended to be accusatory, but it comes across that way. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Aye, agreed. I would probably have closed the original AfD as No Consensus but the original close wasn't a supervote because a lot of those "Keeps" are "she's the oldest person so she's notable".

In fact, if you've got time; (1) "This is a useful article" (2) "Being the oldest living person is worth including the article" (3) ""Age in and of itself is not a reason for notability." Counterpoint: Yes, it is." (4) "Common sense dictates the subject is an encyclopaedic entry by just the length of her biological existence" (5) "She is a notable person for being the oldest verified living person in the world" (6) "being the oldest known living person in the world is indeed a claim of significance and notability" (7) "I believe she's notable for being a longevity record holder" (8) "notable as the world's oldest living person."

That's 8 of the first 9 "Keeps" that are effectively worthless. This isn't a supervote. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am not an administrator, and supported the “Keep” and “Overturn” positions. That said, I salute Fish and karate for making a very difficult and courageous call to overturn what I agree to be a flawed AfD closure. As a point of procedure, discussion at the AfD was not over, and trending very strongly towards “Keep” when the “delete” decision abruptly came down. If that isn’t a Supervote, what would you call it? In any case, An/I is not the place for this discussion, and relitigating the entire matter again. I strongly urge this thread be closed, and all parties walk away. It’s time to move on. Jusdafax (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  I don't agree with your assessment of the original close - it was made in good faith, and the charge of "supervote" is not merited. I do agree with your last point though. This is not DRVRV, I don't see any serious wrongdoing or need for further admin intervention; as far as I'm concerned everyone's honour is intact, and we should move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: FWIW if you undo another admin's action like this, you should stick around to defend/debate it. You should not undo it, and then run off for a long weekend. That reflects poorly on Fish. --Tarage (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• No Tarage. This is not a paid job and we really don't need to stick around to defend an action over the weekend when F&K has already given his view consistently and in a sane manner to Spartaz. Lourdes 01:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As the creator of the deletion review it is not surprising that I think Fish's close was correct. Spartaz clearly went against the consensus in the original AfD, instead preferring his side. As I mentioned in the original, charges that the subject did not meet GNG were emphatically not refuted. Just because some people were canvassed does not remove from the fact that the majority of editors thought the close was incorrect. Clearly this was a case of inclusionism and deletionism on Wikipedia, with each side having some good points and worthless votes. There is nothing more to do here, F and k was in the right. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• No consensus here and Close this discussion please. It's quite clear that this discussion is only going to add to the miles of elongated text chaperoning ANI. I, like many other editors, have my own opinions on both Spartaz' close and F&K's decision and F&K's signature too (which yours truly, if I recall right, was the one to correct); but that should not be a reason for this ANI discussion to now decide on how to overturn F&K's close or how to criticize/commend Spartaz' initial close. Such stuff happens; I'm pulled up for the many AfDs I close and I don't even have the bit! I hope Spartaz just re-takes his bit and gets back to what they do best. We've had enough of good admins fighting with each other and the rest of the world for this week. Lourdes 01:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• It should be clear what my view on the discussion is, but I'm not so concerned about the individual admin who likely isn't (and has no obvious reason to be) aware of the problem in this topic area. The broader point is this; worrying about how this one discussion went is missing the forest for the trees. Deletion discussions (and associated DRVs as applicable) of longevity articles are so thoroughly poisoned with SPAs and stream of consciousness jeremiads about... something... that they need someone monitoring them throughout. Neither the original AfD nor the DRV should have ever gotten to the points at which they did, and some outside monitoring (I'd volunteer, but I've been dealing with the fanboys far too long to either be or be considered neutral) would make these discussions much clearer and less painful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• I agree completely. This AfD/DRV and the previous one are among the most disagreeable discussions that I've paticipated in since a long time. Anybody who dares questioning a longevity article immediately is being accused of being "biased" and admonished to first go after articles about the tallest/fattest/shortest person. Those discussions are poissoned by off-site (and in the case of the present DRV blatant on-site) canvassing by what Blade aptly calls the "fan boys". --Randykitty (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Time should pass This is quite an unorthodox discussion as I have attended deletion discussions for over 10 years and don't recall a WP:DRV ever being challenged in this way before. The relevant policy page indicates that, if a DRV is not accepted then the next step would be another DRV, but that this should not be done immediately:

  Renominations: As with deletion discussions, a certain amount of time should pass between repeated requests for deletion review, and these requests should be carefully considered in light of policy. Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly.

To act otherwise would be a wheel war because we have already had one admin formally revert the decision of another. For admins to continue to revert each others' decisions would be a breakdown in the process. Escalation to arbcom would then be appropriate to break the cycle and consider the fitness of the admins. In this case, Spartaz is not looking good because they have also quit. Spartaz has done this before, retiring in anger after a dispute at AE where their comments were hatted. In that case, their retirement only lasted a few weeks, so I suppose they will cool off again this time. The question to consider is whether their giving up the admin bit is "under a cloud" so that they have to go through RfA again. Their original RfA was in 2007, over 10 years ago, when the process was much easier and my view is that a rerun would be appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Nonsense, in no way did Spartaz leave under a cloud. Your comment is an apt demonstration of the poisoned atmosphere surrounding longevity-related articles. --Randykitty (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry to edit this archived discussion, but if the serious concerns voiced here do not merit further discussion, then I think it is better that I stop wasting my time with this "eating eel is encyclopedic" nonsense. I'm joining [[u|Spartaz}}. Happy editing. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm going to be a bit bold here and reverse the close. This incident has caused Wikipedia to lose TWO admins. Surly that is worth talking about, if not here, then somewhere else. And that somewhere else should be started BEFORE this is closed. --Tarage (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  I am not sure what you want to discuss. AfD/DRV can be just a huge reservoir of shit. I stopped closing AfD several years ago after a similar episode (I closed a highly partisan discussion, was taken to DRV and was overturned with comments of the type "I am surprised that this guy who can not even read became an admin"). I do not see how an ANI topic can change that.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This should be passed on to Arbcom to deal with, as this discussion has shown that the community is unable to deal with them. The problem appears to be directly linked to admin actions - closing DRVs, hatting discussions, which appears to have driven away two admins.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is clearly going nowhere, as I said to Randykitty on my talk page, and it should be hatted so people can calm down and take a step back. The specific point of discussion here was F+K's close, and I don't see any prospect of any action on that, other than continued mudslinging. If there are specific complaints to be made about sock farms or canvassed editors, or any of that other stuff, then make them in a separate thread. Similarly, if you want to open an Arbcom case, you know where those guys live. Continuing the discussion here is pointless, and the fact that two admins have resigned, although very regrettable, and I hope they change their minds, does not change that fact.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Walter Görlitz

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.

---

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

This editor continues to directly edit this article despite a COI and multiple warnings on his talk page. I still think we can get this editor engaged in a productive way, but it's probably time for a brief block, he takes it upon himself to edit pages without doing research and will revert edits if it does not appeal to him, If you look at his past history edits he will revert multiple users edits if they are not up to "his" standards, something needs to be done about him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:4480:ca0:59ca:f634:742e:31d1 (talk)

You are in a content dispute. Follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? --Calton | Talk 06:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The anon is talking about a content dispute on the California Clásico article where I have been removing an opinion that this "rivalry could become the most important rivalry in MLS". But it’s been six years and it hasn’t become the most important. In fact, none are most important. This is the same editing pattern by RealEarthquake (talk · contribs), but since the IPV6 address changes frequently, it’s hard to nail down. the clue that I have is that Earthquakes925 knows that I am a fan of another team, but a new editor or anon would not know.

No clue what conflict of interest I have, but perhaps the anon could elaborate, but if this is a sock, this would explain the issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and no need to notify me. I've seen the report now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Any article containing the sentence "Unified as one single state, Northern California and Southern California share a notorious rivalry" has serious problems, but blatantly poor content is nothing worthy of discussion at this noticeboard, since there is no need for use of administrator's tools. Just fix the darned article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Safwan Ahmedmia

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

---

Could an administrator please view the deleted history of this article? It was deleted via this discussion, but has since been recreated. If the deleted article and the current article are the same or similar, it will need to be G4d - otherwise, I would probably tag it with {{Unreliable sources}} (due to much of the content relying on Twitter and YouTube) and possibly {{notability}}.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Substantially similar and deleted. --regentspark (comment) 16:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for grabbing that, regentspark :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Improper use of talk page while blocked

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.

---

• Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user was indefinitely blocked per community consensus about a month ago. He has continued to use his talk page in violation of policy ever since. An administrator needs to remove talk page access as he has ignored warnings from other users. Thanks. (Pinging blocking administrator Iridescent) Nihlus 01:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Which policy is that, exactly? --Laser brain (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Laser brain, see WP:OPTIONS, Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Abuse of the unblocking process and WP:SBAN. The point of the block is to prevent him from participating in any form of editing outside of the usual block/ban appeal, which would need to be brought to the community. He is not permitted to edit directly or indirectly while blocked. Nihlus 02:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PROXYING, which does not support this argument. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 02:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:PROXYING makes no mention of a blocked user using their talk page. Nihlus 02:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This time, it's in the opening sentence. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 02:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, again, it makes no mention of the user's talk page and how it supports them editing from it. Nihlus 12:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Talkpage access revoked. SQL^{Query me!} 03:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

SQL I'm sorry, but on what basis are you doing this? Policy doesn't support this action. Per WP:PROXYING, editors are explicitly allowed to make edits at the suggestion of blocked editors if they have merit on their own and the editor performing them is willing to take responsibility. I don't think he's being disruptive and I've already said so in two different places when Tarage was trying to remove this stuff. --Laser brain (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked means blocked. It doesn't mean "use your talkpage to request edits". A blocked editor is not welcome on the site, and is typically only permitted to use their talkpage to appeal said block. SQL^{Query me!} 03:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@SQL: Thanks for giving me your opinion on that, but I asked what policy supports your action. There is precedent for editors suggesting edits while they are blocked (The Rambling Man for instance) and I don't see any evidence he is trolling or doing so in bad faith. Per WP:ADMINACCT you are required to explain what policy supports your action, or I will be undoing it. --Laser brain (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I would not recommend wheel warring. Blocked means blocked. It's a very simple concept. If they're good enough that they can make edit requests - we should unblock. Otherwise, they cannot make edit requests while blocked. This is a very standard practice, and has been so for a very long time. Talkpage access is provided to blocked editors as a courtesy - to appeal the block. It is disruptive to use said talkpage access to continue editing via proxy. SQL^{Query me!} 03:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Undoing an admin action is not wheel warring. That would be if you re-protected the page. Again, you are failing to provide any policy behind your action other than it's "standard practice" which I don't buy. --Laser brain (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to enforce community consensus correct? The community decided to indefinitely block IHTS. Allowing them to continue what they are doing is simply a failure to enforce community consensus. Something that would be unbecoming of any administrator. --Majora (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

As a practice generally, it's used completely indiscriminately and on a whim. Policy *is* the expression of consensus: It's what the community has decided is best practice, and, at the moment, best practice is that WP:PROXYING should be followed. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 03:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The community has decided to enforce a sanction on IHTS. Community consensus is deeper than policy. It is one of the cores of what Wikipedia stands for. But in case you need an actual blue link, WP:CBAN explicitly states that the community can authorize such things and that admins should follow them. Oh and in case it isn't clear, I support the enforcement of community sanctions in this manner. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:BANBLOCKDIFF, and then feel free to give me a blue link that actually says what you think it says. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 03:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. You are the one linking to PROXYING. Something that is also on the BAN policy page. CBAN explicitly says which may include a time-limited or indefinite block. So yeah, I read it. But you continue to speak down to others. --Majora (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: The point is that they are blocked rather than banned. But that is being discussed below. Look: I'm sorry if you thought I was patronisng you. Not true: but I was responding in kind, to "in case you actually neeed..." which comes across as something similar  :) but maybe we misread each other. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 04:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• I for one agree with and Support SQLs block - Had they been blocked for a week or a month then sure I wouldn't of really objected to them doing the whole edit request thing but at present they are community banned indefinitely blocked from this project so shouldn't be requesting edits on their behalf, The wisest thing they could've done was to completely disengage from the project for a year and maybe retry an unblock request at some point, Like SQL says Blocked means blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 03:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Davey2010: Where are you getting that they're community banned? I guess everyone just pulls things out of their asses in this case and this editor has to suffer for it? --Laser brain (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Laser brain - The second sentence in your response above wasn't necessary - it appears that you're implying that Davey2010 is "pulling things out of his ass". I think he may have just said the wrong term or confused something and believed that it meant that the user was community banned. There's no need to respond in that manner toward another editor like that... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw that you redacted the comment made above. Thank you for doing that and for apologizing to Davey2010 in the edit summary :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso is indefinitely blocked (prevented from editing the project using the technical tool Special:Block) per consensus at this ANI discussion. They are not banned (formally retracted or prohibited from making edits or certain types of edits) from anything or anywhere. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, the difference does not matter. Nihlus 11:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• My apologies I have no idea where "community banned" even came from, That obviously should've said "indefinitely blocked", Thanks Oshwah for your comments and thanks Laser brain for striking - It was a genuine mistake for which I apologise for, thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 - Thanks for updating us with what you meant to say initially; I figured that you just said the wrong thing and meant something else. No big deal at all - we've all done it at least one or twice (or, for me, like a bunch of times) ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse Removal of TPA Blocked editors are not permitted to edit here either directly or via other editors. Rare exceptions are granted in situations where an editor has "independent reasons for making such edits."[162] Blocked editors soliciting edits from their talk page are engaging in a specie of block evasion. This is especially the case when the editor has been indeffed. Revoking TPA in such circumstances is entirely justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse TPA removal: It seems to me that the community explicitly does not wish IHTS' involvement on Wikipedia at this time, so it would seem to me that Wikignoming by proxy via their talk page is directly contrary to that. As an aside, their commentary about the "AN/ANI public drive-by boards" would seem to be rather contemptuous of the process of consensus and not in keeping with the principles of Wikipedia, though I could be misunderstanding them. Waggie (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of TPA - There's a certain amount of truth to the claim that turning off TPA is inconsistently applied, but there's also absolutely no doubt that when misuse of the talk page by a indefinitely community-blocked editor, especially to encourage proxying, is brought to the community's attention, the very frequent result is removal of TPA. An argument can be made that the proxying-encouragement here was not disruptive, but deciding whether behavior is disruptive or not is well within administrative discretion, so those arguments need to be addressed to the admin who took the TPA away, on the basis of exploring the nature of the editing, and not on the basis of Wikilawyering.
  The bottom line here is that IHTS's cumulative behavior over time led the community to have them indefinitely blocked from editing, and editing by proxy is still editing - it simply circumvents the technical restraints that prevent them from editing, much as the creation of a sock would. Neither is allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I had nothing to do with the bringing of this case. I only asked for clarification when I removed a segment and got it. Though I guess there are multiple thoughts about the issue. I don't want people to think I was canvasing. --Tarage (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Tarage - I don't think anyone is going to accuse you of canvassing, but your comment is appreciated nonetheless :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Same here, Tarage, nothing at all wrong with asking for experienced advice when you're unsure of something. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse removal of TPA being blocked, especially indeff, does not mean business as usual. Indeed, it's the cumulative behaviour has led to this more than any isolated issues. It's a shame when an editor with extensive knowledge of their preferred topic area has to go, but when they constantly corrupt our collaborative sprit, they have to go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: at [163] I made a good-faith offer to Ihardlythinkso. He silently reverted it,[164] so I went back to avoiding interaction. I did notice that he has been pinging other editors with suggested edits, which is a bit different -- and a bit more disruptive -- than someone like me volunteering to make the edits. I am now Neutral on TPA removal. I can see good arguments for and against. That being said, I don't believe that Ihardlythinkso understands why he was blocked or is willing to follow our behavioral policies, even on his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of TPA Having looked at the talk page, it seems like the blocked user views it as a way to get others to make edits while blocked. This is not acceptable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TPA: It's only a token, I know, and obviously the consensus wins. But it's not clear in policy exactly what is and is not allowed on the talk pages of blocked users - and as long as a user is using their talk page for the good of the project in a way that is unrelated to their block reason, it seems petty to me to deny that help. Our actions should be based on what's best for the encyclopedia, not on who's allowed in the club today. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of TPA (Non-administrator comment) such behaviour should not be encouraged. The user and his supporters in the community should rather focus on how to improve contributions and preventing the situation that led to the block in the first place. If all blocked users are allowed such activity, it would be a nightmare. Policies are respected, a block and its rationale also needs to be respected. The Block is a forced time off for the user to contemplate on his actions so that they are do not recur. User should not be finding out ways to bypass the block. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TPA until the policy actually says you can do it. At the moment, it says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.". Now, that may not mean a blocked editor can ping a particular editor and ask them to make an edit (that might violate the second part of the policy - it's unclear). However, currently there is no reason why, if I was blocked, I couldn't keep posting "Hey, someone might want to look at this edit and see if you think it's an improvement - if so you might want to make it". No reason at all. Now if someone wants to change that policy - and I agree it wouldn't be an unreasonable suggestion - I suggest they start a discussion about it. But in the meantime it might be an idea not to ignore it? Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment by neutral third-party - I took a look at different policies and guideline pages, and I agree that the content within policy doesn't clearly define this exact situation - where edit requests, user page-like edits, and other such edits that don't fall into the definition of "malicious abuse" (which would result in TPA being removed) are made on one's own talk page during the time in which they are blocked would result in TPA being revoked. I would highly recommend to everyone here that, after this discussion closes, that a discussion is started in the proper channel in order to clarify policy in this situation (probably the village pump or possibly at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy since people cited WP:PROXYING here). I believe that any policy content clarification (if such is done) should be made to the blocking policy as well, since this is where talk page access revocation details are located. Again, this is simply a neutral observation and recommendation. I plan on keeping an eye on this discussion as an uninvolved party so that it can be closed by someone who won't insert bias :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This has already been discussed in March 2018. The consensus there seems to have been to leave this to a case-to-case basis. I don't think additional policy discussion would add much to this (I think it was at CENT at the time). It's up to admin discretion as to whether or not it is disruptive editing. Removal of TPA in these circumstances is not automatic, but it isn't outside of normal practice and understanding of PROXYING. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - Ah, thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware that this discussion has been held before :-). Now I feel stupid... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the March 2018 discussion included a specific suggestion to modify wording to clarify that blocked editors can only use the talk page to appeal the block. It was rejected. Anyone who is supporting removal of TPA on the basis that it is policy should reevaluate their position.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse removal of TPA Blocked doesn't mean that you are sequestered to one small page where you can make edit suggestions and continue to go against the wishes of the community; it means you are blocked from editing, period. There are no rules being ignored except by those wishing to overturn this and IHTS himself. Nihlus 11:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TPA - Obviously I was the one making a bunch of noise about this and challenging SQL on their action, but I see this as a heavy-handed application of quite a grey area where policy is not clear. To be done without warning is an aggravating factor that makes this a poor administrative action. We should be clarifying our policy if editors are indeed not allowed to comment on content matters while they are blocked. Instead of taking action and then having the debate later. Very poor form. --Laser brain (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  Laser brain, the user was warned by Tarage on his talk page and removed it without comment or consideration. I am not sure what more you want. Nihlus 12:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

yes, and here is the warning diff--DBigXrayᗙ 14:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

And, there's this. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a good story, right? SQL^{Query me!} 03:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TPA I confess I had been under the impression that when a user is blocked, they are permitted to edit their talk page but such editing should be limited to appealing the block. However, now that I've read Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Abuse_of_the_unblocking_process, I see that it does not say that. I looked at the summary of the community discussion which led to the block To see if it specifically included additional limitations on talk page activity, and I don't see such a statement. There is precedent for editors posting request for edits on the talk page while blocked, and while this situation might be different, I haven't seen any community discussion explaining why this situation is different, so I don't see any rationale for removal of talk page access. Of course, the community can make such a determination and arguably that's what's going on here, but the talk page access appears to have been revoked based on a misunderstanding of policy. I think it should be restored and a separate discussion should be held, to help ensure that those supporting TPA removal aren't doing so because they think it's policy, and I doing so because it is specifically warranted in this situation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (since we're now doing this) revocation of TPA, per my remarks above with augmentation from Laserbrain's original iteration and SPhilbrick's reiteration of the dearth of basis in actual policy. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Policy sometimes lags behind actual practice, which is an argument for updating the policy, not for stopping the practice, which is a de facto consensus-in-action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that it's certainly an incentive to update policy. RfC, anyone? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TPA I don't see how this helps the encyclopedia and the policy is not as clear as some appear to think it is.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• It was dysfunctional that it took so long to indef block IHTS for years of rather relentlessly attacking other editors. It is also dysfunctional that once he stopped attacking other editors, and was only making edits that would improve the encyclopedia (if and only if agreed to by other editors), he had his talk page access removed. Against the apparent wishes of the blocking admin, no less. I am, of course, stunned and amazed that two dysfunctional things happened on Wikipedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• endorse removal of TPA So hm. First, the close at ANI was interesting. The closer made it an admin action; it is arguable that this was a superclose (bending over backward to be kind), and the correct close was community-imposed indef. I only bring that up, to emphasize that the community said basta. IHTS had became only more disdainful of the community as time went on, not more moderated and more heedful from the many blocks. Yes Floq, it took too long to get there (a long history of bending over backward, trying to accommodate IHTS), but the community got there. Done is done. It is neither dysfunctional nor surprising that when IHTS showed yet further disdain for consensus and kept on trying to edit via proxy, TPA was revoked. It was appropriate, in this case. It isn't happy. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of TPA. If IHTS wants to keep editing Wikipedia, they can do so once they successfully appeal the restriction. If blocked users can continue to edit via talk page edit requests, what's the point of blocking them other than adding additional work for people who review requested edits? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TPA. I am going to echo the comments by Boing!, Black Kite and SPhilbrick. The current policy is unclear about this, and there is no clear community consensus mentioned above on what to do in this specific kind of situation. Until both of these concerns are clarified by community wide process, it is unwise to pretend that we have always been consistent and firm about "common practice", because we have not been. Also, to partially reply GorillaWarfare's comment above: No one is under the obligation to "review" these "requested edits". WP:PROXYING is pretty explicit about what's acceptable here: unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. So if folks wants to be consistent, start an RfC and have this part removed, otherwise we run the risk of opposing explicit policy wording based on purely personal sentiments. Alex Shih (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) No one is obligated to make the edits that IHTS is requesting, but unless they are ignoring all pings by IHTS they are spending time reviewing the edit requests. I hope this discussion does not set the precedent of allowing blocked editors to request edits from their talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TPA - So, here's what I'm reading. IHTS is making constructive suggestions for improvements to chess articles on their talk page. They're getting in nobody's way and causing no disruption. Nobody who has been pinged has registered any issue with this, at least, not that has been presented. We're here bickering over whether this is abuse of the talk page – hint: it's not. Blocks are meant to prevent problems, not prevent constructive contributions. This smacks of punitive "we don't like you, didn't you get the hint, now piss off".
  Why am I not surprised to find that the admin who enacted the tpa removal, SQL, has a grand total of 7 edits to mainspace in the past month, and less than 200 in the past two years? Relevance? You may wonder. IHTS consistently makes more than that every month.
  I'd like to answer GorillaWarfare's question. The point of blocking IHTS, was to curtail their abuse of other editors. Now if they carried that shit on their own talk page, you'd have a solid justification for removing the TPA. You'd have my support too. However, no evidence has been presented to suggest they are doing anything besides being constructive. So there's no problems to prevent. The additional work created, as with all work here, is voluntarily handled. Anybody who wants to review the suggestions, can do so. If nobody wants to, nobody is forced to.
  That's about all I'll say. I don't agree with the community, and I don't like the way this has been handled. Unfortunate, but unsurprising. Oh, and I'm unconcerned with the policy here (though it appears not to exist). IAR. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Relevance? You may wonder. Despite your comments above, I'm still wondering why SQL's edit count matters. If IHTS is a productive editor who can't edit productively in certain aspects of the site, they should request a change to their restrictions that will allow them to keep editing where they can (such as chess articles). And no, IHTS is pinging individuals to review their edit requests, so unless those people are specifically ignoring the pings it is taking up their time. Personally, it won't keep me up at night if people who are abusive (your words) to other Wikipedians can't edit Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  OR below puts it well, below. An editor who is being constructive, who is not causing problems, has lost his talk page access to an admin that has done jack all little (constructive wise) in the past two years. SQL's action does nothing positive for the encyclopedia. That's why it matters. I don't see why a change to the editing restrictions is needed, he hasn't caused any problems on his own talk page, so why has his access been removed? I know "blocked means blocked", and so god forbid if he does something useful. Personally, it won't keep me up at night if people who are abusive (your words) to other Wikipedians can't edit Wikipedia - The abuse has been successfully curtailed. That is the point. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  So then why is he blocked? I wasn't aware we had a second set of Wikipedians who are useful content contributors and terrible at interacting with other people who are coddled by others facilitating each edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Largely irrelevant, isn't it? talk page access is not normally revoked for being blocked, it's revoked for being abused. Point me to the abuse of the talk page, and no, being constructive does not count (and neither does pinging editors, unless the editors being pinged, specifically, have a problem with it). Mr rnddude (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  No, it's not irrelevant. If IHTS can productively edit, why are they blocked to begin with? They were blocked for a reason: the admin who placed the block decided they couldn't constructively edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare - I'll do you the favour of pinging you for this one. Floquenbeam, the admin who blocked IHTS indefinitely,[165] has come onto this thread to express disappointment for IHTS' talk page access being revoked for precisely the reason that Floq thinks that IHTS can contribute constructively. Strike reason: Clarified by Floq that they were referring to Iridescent's current block, not their previous block. Though the point that the current blocking admin is fine with IHTS using their talk page remains. To quote Floq: It is also dysfunctional that once he stopped attacking other editors, and was only making edits that would improve the encyclopedia (if and only if agreed to by other editors), he had his talk page access removed. Yeah, they were blocked for a reason. That block worked. The talk page access removal was not needed. Is this clear now? Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Mr rnddude: To clarify, I wasn't referring to myself above, though I can see why you'd think I was based on how I worded that. While I have blocked IHTS in the past, the current block was by [[User:Iridescent]. Who has said he was fine with IHTS using his talk page in this way. Sorry for the confusion.--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Sigh. Repinging @Iridescent:. I suck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, thanks for letting me know Floquenbeam. Yes I had interpreted your comment differently. Struck and corrected. I still think your personal quote is relevant. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware that the only positive things one can do for the encyclopedia occured in mainspace. Could you retract your attack on SQL stating that he has done nothing constructive for the encyclopedia for the past two years? Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Just noticed that Mr. rnddude tweaked his comment while I was replying; still not sure what SQLs contributions or supposed lack thereof have anything to do with the price of tea in china (also, noticed that I must've subconsciously imitated GorrillaWarfare's comment above, hmm) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  This is, imo, a bad action regardless of edit count. No, I brought up the edit count because it was predictable that an admin who does not create content would be the one to just jump in gung-ho. Hence the "why am I not surprised". If it's still not clear, well, we'll just have to live with it. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TPA - Anyone that desires blocked users be barred from posting the type of content in question here to their talk pages may start a proposal in the proper place and see if it gains community consensus. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Why are we boldface voting why does ANI do this good grief - you realize that what happened here is that someone hurried over to ANI yelling "help, help! this guy is improving the encyclopedia in an unauthorized manner! somebody stop him!", and then somebody actually did, and now a bunch of people are nodding solemnly that yes, this was a thing that made sense? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Opabinia regalis, this was probably the best comment in the entire thread:-) Thanks,∯WBG^converse 05:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Winged Blades of Godric, as I mentioned above, the community made it clear in the prior discussion that IHTS' involvement in the project is not desired at this time. Making edit requests on their talk page only serves to allow them to continue in that regard, against consensus. That's how I see it, at any rate. Waggie (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Waggie, He was indeffed, primarily due to behavioral problems and a complete lack of collaborative spirit, shall anybody opposed his edits.But, that his content-contributions are valuable is beyond doubt (at-least to me).Now, if he starts taking snipes at editors who chooses to revert his proposed edits, (proxied by others), removal of TPA is a no-brainer but not before that.Also, read Floq's comments.∯WBG^converse 06:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Seconded, very well put. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for your reply, Winged Blades of Godric. I appreciate your opinion, and I can see where you're coming from, I simply disagree and will leave it at that. Again, thank you for your reply. Waggie (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Opabinia regalis, you can at least call me out by name next time. Subverting the will of the community is disruptive and is what should be stopped. People who sock yet still improve the wiki are blocked. Why should we make a special case for this individual? Nihlus 13:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• If IHTS starts with attacks based on responses to proxied edits, block whoever proxied - The policy is unclear, but is clear about proxying. Whoever proxies takes full responsibility. With IHTS, the block wasn't about article edits but responses to article edits. The problems were all on talk pages. Saying he can get proxies to edit, then put all of the comments on his own talk page doesn't fully accomplish the preventative function of the block. So if talk page access is retained, I'd like to see it spelled out that if someone proxies for IHTS and that leads to IHTS attacking another user (even if the proxied edit was, on the surface, acceptable), then the proxy should be blocked for creating the conditions that led to the abusive behavior to begin with. In other words, inviting IHTS back into article editing by proxy means taking responsibility for any talk page comments IHTS makes about those proxy edits.

I was torn on this, as I would've preferred to see a long fixed-length block over an indef in the original thread, based on the idea that indef with such a prolonged body of evidence would likely be infinite. So I'm sympathetic to an approach that would at some point make it so IHTS can make article edits again. That said, the issue is/was treatment of other editors on talk pages, not in the articles themselves. The block wasn't for the past, it's to prevent that in the future. Raising the stakes for proxying seems like an interesting middleground. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• As long as we are talking about punishing one person for what another person does, I propose that we block Rhododendrites whenever anyone does anything wrong on Wikipedia because reasons. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Call it outside-the-box. :) I think the policy must be light on [in]appropriate talk page use because proxying for a blocked editor should be strongly discouraged. If proxying continues to put other editors at risk of being attacked, that's a problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Smile.) Agreed, but the solution to a blocked user attacking others on his talk page is removing his talk page access. As per your opinion that proxying for a blocked editor should be strongly discouraged, I refer you to the following comment posted on my talk page:

"The relevant policy is Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. That is, you can move IHTS's material into mainspace but you're taking personal liability for any errors or issues as if you'd created it yourself. This situation isn't that uncommon; Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard was copy-pasted by me to mainspace from a banned user's sandbox, for instance, while Giano and The Rambling Man have both worked extensively on their talkpage when blocked and relied on the goodwill of others to check their material and send it live. Be aware that although this is Wikipedia policy, some people really hate it, and anything copy-pasted at the request of a banned user will be scrutinized for errors with a fine tooth comb in the hope of tripping you up." (Posted by Iridescent to User talk:Guy Macon on 07:49, 31 July 2018 UTC.)

So current policy allows moving material from a blocked user's talk page to main space, but the person doing the moving needs top carefully review the material and is responsible for anything wrong with it, just as if he had composed it himself. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TPA-Per Opabinia, BlackKite, Philbrick and Alex.Un-necessary process-wonkery (and that too in a gray area) and I don't know how it improves the encyclopedia..... Also per Floq:-)∯WBG^converse 05:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TPA - If he was using it abusively that would be a different matter, but he was using it to suggest improvements to the encyclopedia. Nobody is obliged to make those edits. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the relevant policy, per WP:OPTIONS:

* Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own talk page (including the ability to create unblock requests) during the duration of their block. This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page. The protection policy has further details in cases where other users are repeatedly causing disruption to the user talk pages of blocked users.

I don't see any "continued abuse" here. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: It's worth considering that there was more support for a site ban than a mere indef block at ANI. The final stats were: 8 site ban; 6 indef block; 3 opposed to any longterm action. I think the fact that the most support was for site ban would equate to no TP access, per WP:BMB. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TPA - The user asked respectfully for a change to be made to improve the encyclopedia. I don't see any harm in that as long as he remains respectful and courteous. Kadane (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of TPA I don't give a good goddamn over the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments over whether it's a ban or block: the bottom line is that IHTS's contributions aren't welcome here -- if they were, then there'd be a topic or behavioral ban -- so whether IHTS is being polite or whatever basically means fuck-all. --Calton | Talk 09:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TPA largely per Opabinia Regalis. IHTS is suggesting edits that would be productive. Nobody that he has pinged has complained, that I am aware of. His suggestions are unrelated to his block. Why do we want to revoke TPA again? If someone asks IHTS to stop pinging them and he doesn't; or if he starts using inappropriate language; or uses his talk page for anything that is explicitly forbidden; then this would be appropriate. Oh, and there's precedent, as others have noted. TRM used his talk page to suggest edits while blocked; Darkness Shines used his to alert watchers to vandalism and sockpuppetry; and it's a good thing that they did so. Vanamonde (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Talk page back on please Complete the following sentence : we are here to a) argue process ad-infinitum b) ban people we don't like c) write an encyclopedia. As long as IHTS is making suggestions to improve articles on his talk page, that's fine and anyone arguing otherwise has not chosen the right answer in this mini-quiz. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Ritchie333 the quiz is incorrect. c) "write an encyclopedia in a community". If you add that essential missing piece, the !votes to remove TPA will perhaps make sense to you. That said, I understand where you are coming from. I just don't agree that content creation is the only thing that matters. If it did, IHTS would not have been (finally) indeffed. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• I have been following this discussion since my modification of the block, and it appears consensus has turned against what would have in almost any other case been a routine removal of talkpage access for abuse of talkpage access while blocked. I believed at the time that I was doing the right thing in order to protect the project from disruption - something I have done, and seen done many times before, and something I'll definitely think twice about before ever doing again. As I'm going to be mostly unavailable for the next two weeks - I'm going to re-instate talkpage access. I would suggest that if we feel the editor is doing a good enough job to make proxy edits, we should take a serious look at unblocking them. SQL^{Query me!} 08:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @SQL: I just want to say that, yes, you absolutely acted in good faith here and did what many would have seen as routine and uncontroversial. For a long time I also thought blocked users can only use their talk pages for working on an unblock, based on what I'd seen many admins do, and I was surprised to learn there is no clear basis in policy for it - policy is far more vague than that and relies on individual judgment (which I think is correct). If nothing else, I think it's been a useful learning process. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Boing! said Zebedee: - Is the process used described by our policies, or do our policies mandate the process used? I've always thought that the former was the correct answer here. I feel that it's unfair to the editor to wait if I'm not going to be around however - and on top of that if editors I have a lot of respect for are telling me that I'm wrong - there's a pretty good chance that I'm wrong. SQL^{Query me!} 09:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
      • That is indeed the big question. Ideally, policy should document consensus and established practice, and consensus can certainly change policy. But there doesn't appear to be a policy that adequately describes a consensus here, and practice appears to be considerably more variable than I used to think. The big thing here is that there is no clear right or wrong, but maybe we're heading in the direction of establishing it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry about it. I think it's one of those oddities where huge amounts of people think they're clear on the policy, but it turns out that the policy doesn't actually say that. Another example would be the number of people that reinstate block notices on editors' talkpages when they remove them - nope, they're allowed to do that, it's block appeal declines they can't remove ... Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Removal of Talk Page Access - I don't see the slightest problem with the way that page is being used. Why this drama? Carrite (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

The Perche vs. Perche

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

---

Please assist in resolving a long-time dispute between Eric talk and myself Aboudqn talk.

Background: At this point in time, I believe Eric's position is that he has conducted online searches that show that "Perche" appears online more than "the Perche." Weeks (months?) ago, I provided authoritative sources that demonstrate use of "the Perche." Since then, Eric has claimed that those sources are somehow "French," whereas in fact I have carefully cited English-language sources. Most lately, I have added a list of English sources, featuring more than a century of "the Perche" in Encyclopedia Britannica. At first, I added the sources at the bottom of the entry, but since Eric keeps dismissing without reading them (or else he would not characterize them as he does), I raised them to the top. I have been adding to the list (certainly not complete), which at present stands thus:

• Encyclopedia Britannica (1890-2003)
• Encyclopedia of Monasticism (2013)
• An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English (2012)
• The Oxford Handbook of the History of Consumption (2012)
• Fodor's Exploring France (1999)
• Michelin Green Guide Normandy (2012, 2016)
• Power and Border Lordship in Medieval France: The County of the Perche, 1000-1226 (2002)
• The Virgin and the Grail: Origins of a Legend (2008)
• The Missouri Yearbook of Agriculture: Annual Report, Volume 44 (1912)
• A History of the Percheron Horse (1917)
• Queensland Agricultural Journal, Volumes 15-16 (1921)
• The Rise and Fall of the Second Empire, 1852-1871 (1988)
• The Forgotten Pollution (2013)
• Campaigning for Napoleon: The Diary of a Napoleonic Cavalry Officer (1806 -1813) (2007)

References:

References

The bottom-line issues seems fairly clear to me:

• IMHO, Eric champions common use, no matter whether correct or not.

"La Perche is a commune in the Cher department of France."

-EEng

Le Cod

-EEng

Le Perch

• However, the English-language sources I have cited – encyclopedias (Britannica), tour guides (Fodor's), etymological dictionary, books that specializes in aspects of the Perche (e.g., agriculture, world-famous Percheron horses), history books (about the Perche, France, Europe) – count nothing to him. Nor do the publishers of these sources count to him, including: Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Yale University Press).
• Moreover, I champion accuracy:
  • Most if not all of the publications cited demand expertise and/or fact-checking by their publishers. All serve as authoritative sources with vested interests in publishing with accuracy.
  • Ultimately, at all times, whether Encyclopedia Britannica or Wikipedia or other, all publishers should seek to publish with accuracy.

This is why I have pursued this minor matter over the name of a centuries-old, now unofficial, historic province or county in Lower Normandy, France: it stands for precedence in Wikipedia. I look forward to your resolution of this dispute, and thank you. --Aboudaqn (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a routine content dispute and this noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. Please use the various methods of dispute resolution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Jim Heaphy

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

---

A couple of days ago, Checkingfax created Jim Heaphy, who most of you will know is Cullen328. The article was subsequently PRODded by Fram and set to expire in three days time. Cullen328 has since posted on the talk page that he did not want a biography of himself on Wikipedia and he had nothing to do with this one. I agree (one sentence contained unsourced libel, in my view), and have deleted the article per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE / WP:IAR. Since citing IAR to delete articles can be controversial, I'm starting a discussion here to see if there are any problems and issues with this. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A few days ago? Cant see anything at Special:Contributions/Checkingfax? 86.187.165.19 (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You can't see contributions from a user if they've been deleted unless you're an admin; in this case, Checkingfax created the article at 7:20 UTC on 29 August. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So Google have cached it. 86.187.165.19 (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It was cached because Checkingfax is autopatrolled. I would argue removal of this flag would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I want an urgent explanation from Checkingfax. What the fuck did he think he was doing here? This is not some n00b. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused as to why this was created ? ... A search on Google brings up nothing so why create it ? .... Obviously agree with the deletion here. –Davey2010^Talk 12:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't want t split hairs, but does User:Checkingfax (8-years' tenure, 20+ articles, clean block log, 30K+ edits) have a track record of "libelling" people? On edit- It doesn't matter; in the light of what's come up (and may well yet do so), splitting hairs is absolutely the thing to be doing! User:Serial Number 54129,@ 12:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)/ —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

He has a track record of vindictive and retaliatory behavior. I'd be curious if there was any of that in the posting of this poorly sourced article that contained an unsourced disparaging claim at best (and unsourced libel at worst). Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A skim over his recent page creation log shows some Neelix levels of inappropriateness—Sodomy of Suzanne Bombardier or The fire in Oakland, California, anyone? ‑ Iridescent 2 13:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I was just about to tag the sodomy one, as the article doesn't even mention it, let alone source it. That in itself is a pretty massive misunderstanding of WP:V for someone with all the wiiqualities I just pointed out... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

He ran for RfA a few years back and the "oppose" section is full of problems; I haven't had cause to deal with him recently, but it seems the problematic behaviour presented there has not gone away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I do not see how this article could reasonably survive AfD and therefore endorse the deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It was an unwise decision to create it, it was a borderline or passive-aggressive attack page, it was sourced mainly to Wikipedia itself, and the subject did not want it. The subject is a fine author, journalist, wiki editor, and admin, but there's no major national or international notability. Softlavender (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Looking at the Google cache version I think it could have been speedily deleted under A7. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with Ymblanter and Iridescent 2 (Iridescent) that Checkingfax's autopatrolled right should probably be removed, and he should probably submit all new creations through AfC. Softlavender (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Sending the new creations to NPP should be sufficient (may be a short explanation at the talk page of that project would be in order if the flag has been removed).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  How do we do that? Is manual-unreviewing of autopatrolled articles plausible?∯WBG^converse 14:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  I do not know (I guess it is not possible), but I meant their future creations would go to NPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Please review the serious problems being noted by Iridescent and Serial Number 54129 up above, and Serial Number 54129 below. Softlavender (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Revoke autopatrolled, please--This editor has an adulation with wiki-personalities.....∯WBG^converse 14:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal of autopatrolled at least: I linked above to the 20+ articles they created, but the elephant in the room is that there's well over the same amount that have been deleted for notability concerns. That's slightly worrying. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  That's why I recommend all new creations be required to go through AfC (in addition to autopatrol removal). Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I've no idea what was going through Checkingfax's mind when they created that, but there are no notability-defining sources there, and as others have said there was content verging on libel BLP violation. I'm also disturbed by those two redirects highlighted by Iridescent, and with a userbox proclaiming the creation of 1,702 redirects I fear for what else might be there. Definitely revoke autopatrolled, I'd say too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC) (Amended in the light of discussion below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC))
• Endorsed deletion and revoke all privileges from Checkingfax other than ordinary editing. This isn't their first case of this sort of thing. Despite their multi-year tenure on en:wp it appears this individual lacks the judgment and discretion that are presumed by such privileges. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yikes, are we going to have to check through 1,702 redirects? Shades of Neelix indeed. Softlavender (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Slightly over 1000 it would seem, and they're not, at first glance, all as bad as that one above. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    • If he claims 1,702 and only 1,000 are still extant, that means that 40% of them have been deleted. Even the stats you linked say that 30% were deleted. That's a very very bad track record, on par with Neelix. Softlavender (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
      • • I don't know where Checkingfax got their figures from, but the page I linked includes deleted redirects. A slight anomaly? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• As strange as it sounds, but WP:APAT says nothing about what the criteria for revocation of autopatrol status are. However, between the comments here and perlustrating the articles and redirects that have been mentioned, it seems like the concerns are severe enough to warrant removal of autopatrol status. If someone thinks I've been too hasty feel free to readd. I also see that I linked to the wrong noticeboard in the revocation summary. Whoops. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:...any chance you get to stick a {{TOC}} on that talk...?  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Um, which talkpage ... ? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Their one. It's massive and with no toc, means arm-ache... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Could someone elaborate please? I'm looking at the Google cache version (I suppose it may be gauche to link to it directly, but one uses Google Cache by slapping a url after http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache: ), and while you can certainly make the argument that the subject isn't notable or that it's not a very good article, I see absolutely nothing that makes me think things like "attack page", "libel", "vindictive", etc. How is this some smoking gun? Then the other bit of evidence, Anasuya Sengupta, is also not itself problematic except insofar as she may not be notable (at very least she's not obviously unnotable -- she's interviewed and/or published and/or involved with a whole lot of publications, nonprofits, etc.). None of this is to say the articles are great -- but why are we here at ANI? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed, half of what their article says is already available on C328's own userpage :) and since both are form CA, and Checkingfax writes predominantly on that state, it's probably not surprising that they'd get to Cullen eventually. I expect it was far more intended to be in the way of homage; for what it's worth, there was certainly nothing attacking in it. But that still doesn't make it suitable or its deletion unsuitable, eh, Ritchie333 —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• I think you basically answered your own question - the article doesn't technically meet any of the CSD criteria, so I had to use WP:IAR to justify deleting it. If you do that, it's generally a good idea to broadcast you've done it so nobody thinks you've unilaterally ignored the deletion policy while nobody was looking. As for coming in here instead of AN, there's the side order of Checkingfax being mildly disruptive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• We are here at ANI because of the request of Ritchie333 to evaluate the deletion (I personally think AN would be better, but it does not matter at this stage). The obvious problems with the article are usage of primary sources, presence of details which are usually discuuraged for BLP, and seeming lack of understanding of WP:N by the creator. I do not think the creator acted in bad faith, or that the article is libel. No, it is just a (good-faith) attempt to bring attention to details which whereas not secret can be not appreciated by being shown in public.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Let me clarify. I understand why Ritchie opened this thread (an IAR deletion). What I don't get is how it turned into an angry mob vs. checkingfax, with proposals for removing rights and to check all of his contributions. Specifically following my initial comment: Ritchie333 also said one sentence contained unsourced libel, which was echoed by others. Then Softlavender's He has a track record of vindictive and retaliatory behavior. How is that related? Most of the other comments seem to follow these, and non-admins may presume those are relevant claims to the present discussion, as opposed to an experienced editor creating an article that wasn't all that good. If they are relevant claims, then Google Cache version must be wildly different from the one admins see, because there's definitely nothing libelous, vindictive, retaliatory, etc. there. That's all very different from including details we discourage and a misunderstanding of N. To be clear, I'm not opposing removal of autopatrolled -- it just seems like these were thrown out there on a kneejerk reaction to a very small sample, wildly mischaracterized by using terms like libel and talk of vindictive/retaliatory behavior, pointing to the old RfA, and generally making this an RfC/U about checkingfax when it didn't start out that way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, another as to the case of flag-revocation.......∯WBG^converse 14:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, yuppp Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Wholly agree with Ymblanter above. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

But now Cullen328 has said all that needs to be said below. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• If you're gonna hang Checkingfax for the Norman Wielsch bio, at least work from his first stable version of the piece in 2014, not the version that uses the words "phony arrests" that Checkingfax didn't even write. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know what version is in the Google cache (as I don't know how to find it), but the deleted version claimed Jim Heaphy was "instrumental" in another person losing their job, a claim which was totally unsourced - and that's a BP violation at the very least. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• The link to the cached version is provided by an IP further up this thread. I agree this is definitely a BLP violation.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, missed that link, thanks - yes, that's the same as the final deleted version. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Should be sourced, should be reworded, and should be removed by default. Yep. Certainly not going to argue that, and checkingfax deserves a trout for it. But it's not remotely libel. And it's not remotely related to anything vindictive or retaliatory. Quite the opposite, it seems. It's also, let's be realistic, not all that outrageous as a BLP violation. It's based on an essay Cullen wrote and widely publicized, after all, and the subsequent Signpost coverage (presuming). If this section were just about that quote or this article, presented without multiple people trying to characterize it as "libel," framing in terms of "vindictive and retaliatory" behavior... eh, I'm just again disappointed at how quick people are to throw kerosene on something as soon as it shows up at ANI. I'll leave it at that, because I'm not actually trying to defend the article -- just the editor that's been around for years with 30k edits trashed in this thread for mistakes, based on mischaracterizations and a few minutes of research. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: I'm a personal friend of Jim Heaphy. I saw the article in the PROD queue and thought it was an obvious candidate. I do think that going the IAR route was a bad call here, however; we need to have one set of rules both for inclusion and exclusion of articles -- not one set of rules for Wikipedians and another set of rules for everyone else. This was an obvious candidate for relatively fast PROD deletion and nature should have been allowed to run its course. There was nothing in the article at a glance that was defamatory. Jim's own views about suitability for inclusion are his own and he knows as well as anyone that they should not come into play with a rational, rules-based analysis of available sourcing. Jim's a great guy, this has no bearing upon him personally, obviously. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as the old saying goes -- there is no need for special rules for special people or for making use of IAR deletion to short-circuit our normal, rules-based processes. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I will add that I just skimmed the piece and glanced at the sourcing; if there was a BLP violation in the text that I missed, we have rules and processes for eliminating that as well. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

For me, the salient point was on the talk page, where Jim wrote, "It is not an accurate representation of my life". Unlike just about every other BLPREQUESTDELETE I've seen, in this case, I am happy that the subject has an adequate understanding of Wikipedia policy, and if they say an article is factually inaccurate, I'm prepared to believe them. The article wasn't a hit piece and I'm sure Checkingfax wrote it in good faith, but just because something's in a reliable source (particularly if it's in a single local news report), doesn't mean it's true, or can be used to write a balanced BLP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Revoke Autopatrolled - I've seen enough to convince me that this is an editor with enough problems in their creation history that they need to be running new contributions through the New Page Patrol queue. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Suggestion (Non-admin/peanut gallery comment) Since the article has been deleted, and Cullen clearly doesn't want it to be on WP, should someone remove the link to Google's cache of it near the top of this thread? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I did not expect this particular big controversy when I took a look at my watchlist a few minutes ago. Let me be clear about a few things. First of all, Checkingfax (like Carrite) is an editor I have actually met personally on a few occasions including at least two WMF events. He has been very kind to my wife and my disabled son, and I like him personally. We are friendly on social media. I did not interpret anything in his article as libelous because it is true that research I did played some role in the events that led to the resignation of a WMF trustee. I certainly do not consider what Checkingfax wrote as "vindictive and retaliatory" in any way. When I wrote on the article talk page, "It is not an accurate representation of my life.", I was not trying to say that the article contained any falsehoods but rather that I am a 66 year old man who has openly participated in public affairs and volunteer work on a wide range of issues for 50 years and that article narrowly discussed my recent Wikipedia work, especially two specific essays that I wrote. In conclusion, I certainly support deletion of the article, but encourage a more nuanced assessment of what Checkingfax did in writing that article about me. I do not think that it is necessary to come down on him like a ton of bricks, but I will leave the decision to those of you who are uninvolved. Please be kind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Also there were no pictures of flowers or adorable babies, so it was not a reflection of the real you :-) Guy (Help!) 20:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Guy is alluding to my Facebook page, where I indulge my hobby of flower photography and my love of my granddaughter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Given this, I suggest that this just be closed now. The discussion has, at least, suggested that the revoking of the autopatrolled flag for Checkingfax is appropriate, but - let's face it - that's not exactly a major hindrance to them creating articles anyway. I would suggest that revoking any othe permissions is something approaching overkill. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Second Black Kite, and also suggest a rapid archive per IAR out of respect for Jim's wishes. If someone wants to open a new thread on Checkingfax, they should at least give Jim's request consideration. John from Idegon (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen328's last words above were "Please be kind." Would that be a first here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Very possibly. Anyway, I'm going to close it. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?

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

---

User talk:Jamaas9#"legal issues for the USA"? What's that about? I asked the editor if they were planning to go to court or encourage others to do so. The response:

"I have no plans unless I am being blocked for content-related issues that are not covered by rules and procedures. Am simply warning that some of the questionings on here will not look good in the future considering all this recorded and searchable if we are following global trends re: human rights. Only signed up to clean up some pages using established rules/procedures that are related to the USA's involvement in the Afghan Civil War so that something like that doesn't ever take place. Does that answer your question? Jamaas9 (talk) 5:56 pm, Today (UTC+1)"

It certainly looks like one. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure about legal threats, but it clearly demonstrates WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I am warning you as some of the Iranian related pages were unbalanced and heavily nationalized. This isn’t good for the WP or internet community in general. I am not threatening you. Jamaas9 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• I really wish we'd quit it with seeing a "legal threat" in every incoherent rumbling about someone saying they'll do something somewhere somehow. These people are dopes and should just be blocked per CIR or NOTHERE. Then we don't have to worry about what's a legal threat or not. EEng 18:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Ymblanter and EEng. Block Jamaas9 per Wikipedia:NOTHERE. Please know your place as a former colonizer as your actions have been discriminatory against other editors, says it all. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the user as NOTHERE. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Beat me to it by 2 minutes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Neverending BLP issues on Australian Liberal politicians

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

---

We have an ongoing problem with an IP making dreadful-quality contributions across various articles related to the Liberal Party of Australia. He has been repeatedly warned and previously blocked for 72 hours for adding incredibly defamatory material about a politician and hasn't learned a bit. This edit to an article about the party's state branch and this edit attempting to smear someone because she went to someone else's event from the last day or two are typical of his average edits: random negative trivia intended to impugn his factional rivals, often including very poorly sourced and potentially defamatory allegations (although he's stooped into very defamatory edits multiple times, I just can't be bothered digging through tons of diffs). This really needs a ban/long-term block - none of this IP's edits ever actually improve the project. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

As another editor who has found it necessary to revert this IP editor's efforts on many occasions, I fully support the above comments. As their contribution history shows, this IP editor is obsessed with the Liberal Party of Australia, particularly its Victorian Branch, and persists with adding the most absurd trivia, often libellous, to articles. Despite considerable effort by experienced editors, very little learning about what is appropriate in articles seem to have occurred. The language and grammar used in additions to articles is often childlike, and I do wonder if we are dealing with quite a young, immature person here, someone who has only just discovered politics. The issue of WP:COMPETENCE has crossed my mind more than once when dealing with this person's contributions. Being inexperienced is not a sin, but failing to learn over time is a problem when it comes to editing here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I blocked them for a week and left them an explanation that if they continue this pattern the next block will come soon and for a longer duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: - thank you very much! The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor at Christian ethics

• Christian ethics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tahc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Airborne84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Tahc is being generally disruptive and creating conditions at Christian ethics to suppress editing and displaying apparent ownership of the article as the primary author. Unfortunately his/her concerted efforts to maintain the status quo (reduce visibility and create roadblocks) on a low-traffic talk page makes it challenging for any editor to address them and means the article will likely remain start class with multiple tagged issues and a WP:NPOV issue for the foreseeable future. I have frankly run out of patience and do not plan to engage the article anymore under these conditions, but would like to enable others to improve the article in the future in a more permissive environment. I'll list below the context and Tahc's conduct that is causing these conditions, running contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for good editing:

• In 2012, there was a consensus on Old Testament (OT) material related to the article. Because the talk page is not often-commented on, I had to request a Third Opinion to augment my and another editor's position. This resulted in a consensus that the material is relevant.
• Some time later, Tahc came to the article and dismissed the consensus, claiming consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policy instead of trying to achieve a new consensus.
• Tahc began a did a major rewrite of the article in March 2016, removing much of the Old Testament material, and promoting a particular point of view related to the New Testament.
• I happened on the article again and saw its state, noted my concerns about neutrality on the talk page, and added a POV tag to the article. (This isn't just my position; StAnselm also noted a POV concern at the RfC on the talk page.)
• Tahc summarily deleted the POV tag here, dismissing, rather than discussing, the stated concerns on the talk page.
• I requested a third opinion which another editor deleted due to a third editor commenting on the issue after the request. Unfortunately, that other editor only made an abstract comment in passing.
• I then requested an RfC for broad consensus on whether Old Testament material is relevant to the article to highlight the lack of that material in the article as POV. The result appears to be a clearly reaffirmed consensus on its relevance.
• Tahc dismissed the consensus as irrelevant, again asserted that there was no previous consensus, and repeated that "consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policies" (apparently a person opinion since he won't explain where he gets this idea from). The latter indicates to me that, no matter what consensuses we achieve on the article, Tahc will dismiss them based on his/her personal "standard".
• During the above discussions, Tahc suggested that only "textbooks" that supported OT material inclusion would be relevant as sources, dismissing multiple other high-quality WP:RSs provided, and creating a standard higher than that required by Wikipedia—another apparent roadblock to maintain the article's status quo.
• After subsequent discussions of potential material to add, another editor, Jzsi, concurred that some of the passages would improve the article. I drew from that, other previous discussions, and the consensuses, notified other editors of my intention on the talk page to begin addressing the POV concern, waited four days for comment, and then began boldly editing.
• Soon after, Tahc reverted ALL of the edits to the "last okay version" here, invoking WP:BRD and stating ironically that discussion was required. Tahc then made clear on the talk page that he/she had not followed WP:BRD by trying to retain material that would improve the article, and making immediate adjustments to other edits. He/she just deleted them all summarily, reverting to the status quo. I notified Tahc that this runs contrary to Wikipedia guidelines which promote editing and discourage reverting to maintain the status quo, especially by editors who have written the previous material, pointing to the second bullet in "Bad reasons to revert" that fits this situation perfectly. But in an effort to move forward, I asked Tahc to identify his concerns with the edits (all from high-quality WP:RSs with a clear link to the article's subject matter) and Tahc won't do it. Tahc asserted that each passage needs to be brought to the talk page "one at a time" for discussion before putting in the article (as if there has not been discussion). Another roadblock to editing.

To summarize, Tahc's established pattern on this Start-Class article with neutrality issues is to minimize visibility and erect roadblocks to editing. I.e., minimize visibility by dismissing consensuses versus seeking to achieve a new consensus (necessarily through outside editors due to low traffic), and deleting a POV tag that directs interested editors to the concerns. And more roadblocks through trying to impose a personal standard for material beyond Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, summarily reverting multiple edits without reading them, and insisting that all proposed edits be brought to the talk page, regardless of previous discussion, "one at a time" before including in the article. Low traffic equates that to Tahc personally approving all additions—a very effective roadblock for an editor who is the primary author trying to maintain the status quo with a well-established pattern over multiple years. As a result, my desire to try to improve the article has soured, and I don't have time to continue to bring in outside help to overcome roadblocks that take little effort to maintain due to the lack of traffic there. However, I would like to address Tahc's conduct so others can attempt to improve this article—which sorely needs it—in the future. Thanks.--Airborne84 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Question - There is a section in the talk page that purports to be a Request for Comments as to whether the Old Testament is relevant. (Of course it is, but that isn't the question now.) However, it was either never published with an RFC tag, or the RFC tag was removed. Can someone explain why the so-called RFC doesn't have an RFC tag? This question does make a difference, because it does affect whether there was ever a consensus determined by closure, or whether we just have editors who are trying to game the system by claiming the force of RFCs, or whether the system is being disrupted. Why was the so-called RFC never tagged? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Airborne84 was the one who (seemed to have) called for the RfC. My guess is that he quickly did it and did not know how to do so correctly. tahc ^chat 01:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Airborne84's summary above mischaracterizes several actions of himself or others. Airborne84 normal attitude toward the article alternates between long periods of neglect and shorter periods of more tenacious editing. Airborne84's very first edit on Christian ethics was an article tag, and his second edit (6 minutes later) was a 1434 characters criticism of (one author's view of) Bible ethics. While we can have criticism of Christian ethics in this article, we have other places on Wikipedia to cover criticism of Old Testament ethics, namely Ethics in the Bible or Criticism of the Bible.
• When I began edits on the article, it was mostly a history of different authors' writings on the topic. Over time, I helped rewrite the article to cover items that a modern course on Christian ethics would cover, and also to be more like other Wikipedia articles on the ethics of other religions. Doing this included removing off-topic material about the Old Testament, but some material about the Old Testament does remain. Both Airborne84 and myself have left in a statement that points out that "Christians today 'do not feel compelled to observe all 613 commandments' in the Torah"; in other words, the Old Testament has limited value (if any) in Christian ethics. This form of the article with limited material on the Old Testament has had at least consensus through silence for quite some time.
• When I removed POV tags from the article, it was because the tags did not have a discussion begun on the talk page to indicate its rationale. Even now, it is unclear what POV or POVs Airborne84 thinks are missing from the article. On 16 July 2018, Airborne84 requested a Third Opinion without first trying to discuss me directly. User:Aquegg asked for more information before giving a Third Opinion and Aquegg proposed that books like "modern theology text-books" would be the most reliable sources to consult for the issue at hand. While I agree, this standard was Aquegg's idea rather than mine. Both Airborne84 and I presented our views, but before Aquegg could give any Third Opinion, Airborne84 decided the process was "inconclusive"-- although he only waited 2.5 hours since my last post for Aquegg's reply before he did this-- and Airborne84 began a Request for Comment. This seems to be because Airborne84 did not like Aquegg's ideas on what are the most reliable sources. If one has never studied Christian ethics much it might seem simple to verify that the Old Testament informs Christian ethics, but such a view is not found in textbooks on Christian ethics.
• Rather than crafting the RfC to be about a particular point of disagreement he and I had, or about any particular point of disagreement he and Aquegg had, or even on any particular source he considered useful to improving the article, Airborne84 worded the RfC (in my view) to be very vague. He asked if "Old Testament material" should be "allowed to inform" the article. After discussion had already begun he inserted a clarification that he meant discussion of Old Testament material from modern sources shared "in the context of Christian ethics". This was a help, but "in the context of Christian ethics" proved misleading. Jzsj and I were able to discuss with Airborne84 a passage from Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics that showed the complexity of deciding what might seem to be "in the context of Christian ethics."
• While Airborne84 and I did later agree ourselves that "Old Testament material needs to be clearly linked to Christian ethics", the RfC itself resulted in no consensus. Airborne84 claimed otherwise. Airborne84 then made many edits all at one time without discussion or consensus, and afterward claimed that he didn't have time to discuss passages one at a time. tahc ^chat 01:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: It was a valid RfC that ran for the 30 days.[166] It only expired recently and has not been formally closed, yet both editors are claiming their own differing readings of consensus. The RfC obviously needs to be listed for a requested close so that it provides a formal reading of consensus. As of now, it's meaningless since the consensus is obviously not uncontroversial enough to not warrant a formal closure. Once you secure an actual answer from the RfC, then you can go about implementing that consensus—with another RfC, or two, of ten, if you're incapable of collaborating. Regarding the claim that "consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policy", that's entirely correct. A local consensus to include content means exactly nothing if a user objects to it on WP:V grounds. The policy is clear, unsourced content can be removed, and it's mandatory to provide a source if you want to restore it. A local consensus cannot override policy per WP:CONLIMITED. It looks like Tahc brought up a straightforward sourcing issue, and you failed to address it. That's not ownership behavior, though I understand why it might be frustrating. Swarm ♠ 04:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm, my frustration is from the pattern of issues that I've laid out above. This wasn't intended to be a referendum on one of the (apparent) consensuses I linked to. However, I did request closure of the RfC at the link you provided. Thanks.

In any case, I did address Tahc's sourcing issue. Directly and at length. I've agreed with him that there should be a clear link in a source linking OT material to the article's topic. I clarified the RfC to reflect Tahc's concern (he agreed above). I then listed a number of sources that provide the clear link he requested here, taking care to note how they meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Tahc basically ignored them, suggesting "textbooks" should be a criterion, and maybe only one of them met that personal standard of his. Yet, another editor, Jzsi, concurred that three of them were improvements. So, I notified of my intention to edit and then added the three passages the other editor mentioned, I included material from the source Tahc mentioned (figuring naively that he can't argue with that one from discussion). Tahc simply reverted it all here to the "last okay version". And you can see in the edits that I took pains in the notes to clearly establish the link that Tahc was concerned about. And it's evident from the talk page that he didn't even read them. He just reverted them. So, the record shows that I have laboriously addressed Tahc's concerns. This isn't about his concern that a clear link be drawn anymore. It's about him maintaining the status quo.

Tahc's pattern is to automatically revert material that changes the status quo and the POV written he's written into the article (again, I'm not the only one to notice it).

As another example of this, Tahc automatically reverted the POV tag I added to the article. You can see above that he's claiming again I added it without discussion. This is getting tired and it's purposeful dishonesty at this point since I've pointed out to him that I discussed the tag on the talk page. It's a matter of record. I added the tag on 12 July here, I immediately went to the talk page and posted this new section called "POV Tag added" eight minutes later here (with my concerns noted). 15 hours later, Tahc followed his pattern of disruption by deleting it here. Yet he continues to claim that I'm at fault because the tag "did not have a discussion begun on the talk page to indicate its rationale" (in Tahc's words above). But I've told him before that it did. You might ask "why" he continues with this canard?

It's part of the roadblocks he's erected. Ignore when other editors address your concerns about sourcing. Require sources that exceed Wikipedia's requirements. Minimize visibility on the article. Automatically revert any edits without reading them or the discussion on the talk page. Claim that there has been no discussion. Ignore the tenets of the guidelines invoked (WP:BRD). Assert you don't have time to read multiple edits at once and each passage needs to be discussed individually on the talk page first. Even if they have been.

The reason is clear. In Tahc's words above, the "Old Testament has limited value (if any) in Christian ethics". Tahc appears to be the only editor on the talk page (which has brought in 8 or more editors now for comment) who supports that position. And he's written that POV into the article. Due to the normally limited traffic, his roadblocks will easily maintain that POV. I came here to try to change those conditions. Your response will determine if the article is to keep that status quo indefinitely or become more permissive for future editors. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the responses here send a clear message.

Stop by the Christian Ethics article in a year or two. It'll look remarkably like the Start Class essay it is now. A bit similar to Tahc's other essay.

Feel free to close this thread. I'm out. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Allegations made on PaulCHebert's talk page

I do this with great hesitancy. I would appreciate it if an admin could look at the thread titled "Kate Bolduan" on my talk page and evaluate whether or not Tlmw's persistent attempts to make (unfounded) assumptions about my politics, using those assumptions to evaluate my edits, and accusing me of being "guilty" of participating in a "cover up" are appropriate or not. I am beginning to feel harassed by his commentary. Many thanks. PaulCHebert (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Addendum: @Ponyo: is somewhat familiar with this case -- I only now realized that they are an admin. PaulCHebert (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

As you know I've tried to reason with Tlwm on their talk page, but have not had much success. It would be helpful to get fresh eyes on the subject.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@PaulCHebert:, please notify Tlwm of this discussion as noted in the yellow box when you edit this page. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for the continued personal attacks after warning. The IDHT is strong with this one...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Notification  Done. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about missing the notification. Thanks to @FlightTime: for covering me. @SarekOfVulcan: IDHT? PaulCHebert (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@PaulCHebert: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, sorry, should have linked it the first time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As a completely disinterested party, having taken a look at the thread in question, the thread on Ponyo's talk page and the articles where the dispute was taking place, my thoughts are:
  • Tlwm has some serious competency issues with the English language. I do not think that he should be writing prose. List articles, templates, talk page discussions and other outlets remain open to his contributions, but I strongly feel that he should not be writing prose for article bodies.
  • Tlwm also seems to have a battleground mentality.
  • Tlwm does not understand American politics well at all. PaulCHebert's editing (in the areas I mentioned above) does not, in any way, appear to be indicative of an editor with conservative political views, much less a right-wing POV pusher.

I'm not sure what to do. My instincts are to try to retain this editor, but the logical part of my brain says "indef per WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE". I don't see how they could improve their editing to the point of being a net positive. But as I said, my instincts are to try to retain them and I trust my instincts. So I am refraining from suggesting a course of action at this time. But I agree fully that Tlwm is the source of this conflict. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, no. I did not harassed him, no interest. I am open for critics and improvements but not for massive cuts because He doesn't like my writing style. I asked him to improve it, but now we are here. I have to ask myself about his intentions. Every word I posted in his discussion went very fast to Jezebel's Ponyo. They were hunting. PaulCHerbert was very belittling like many here. He introduces false information (I think by accident) and typos. I can not write like this. I am not here for my ego or winning, then I prefer to leave wikipedia. Tlwm (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC) (Copied from Tlwm's talk page - FlightTime (open channel) 19:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC))

I'd prefer Tiwm leave Wikipedia as well. Severe competency issues. --Tarage (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to note that Tlwm's English compositions skills seem to have improved somewhat between the bulk of this issue and their responses at their talk page. This may be more of a case of anger interfering with Tlwm's abilities. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree -- if you look at his mainspace contributions, they are often very difficult to decipher. The stuff I removed here is a quick example. PaulCHebert (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That truly is atrocious syntax... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

There are definitely CIR and IDHT issues here. I don't think Tlwm has done anything deserving of a ban, but it is likely he will be back at ANI if he doesn't either drop this topic area, or undergo a major attitude readjustment. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, but comparing reverts to the Holocaust kind of tips my vote towards an indefinite block. Blackmane (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That certainly shows a certain lack of perspective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

In fairness to him, he wasn't comparing reverts to the Holocaust; he was comparing reverts to Holocaust denial, in that he sees them as attempts to cover up history. Still massive hyperbole, and problematic, but not quite on the same level. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Crimean Bridge (Crimea) needs a discretionary sanctions template

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 somebody please add a discretionary sanctions template (Eastern Europe) to the talk page? We have some weak disruption going at the talk page, with extended confirmed users advocating that the article should not mention Ukraine (the bridge is between Russia and Crimea; Crimea is disputed between Ukraine and Russia). I hope the template would cool them down a little bit. I would have done it myself, but I am involved, and already accused in all kind of deadly sins. (Hopefully no further action is required at this point). Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I added the talk page notice, an admin needs to come by and add the editnotice as well. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 10:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless there are actual restrictions edit notices aren't usually added, are they? Also Ymblanter, my understanding is that these talk page templates, being purely informational, can be added by anyone, involved or not.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, correct, I was under the impression there was an ER as well, my bad. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 11:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In principle, yes, but if I did it, the talk page discussion could become even more complicated. Here we are in 2018, and most Wikipedia users forgot already that they need to assume good faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose so, yeah; I've also given DS alerts to the people participating if they hadn't been given one before in the last year Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot, QEDK and Galobtter--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

QEDK thinks that a single edit of a single byte is "show[ing] an in interest in EE affairs :D brilliant. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It's (probably) the first time I've issued an alert. As far as my understanding goes, I think it is just an alert; you probably shouldn't mind, and if you do, I apologize. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. But I do not think it is particularly in the spirit of the purpose of the notice, although not egregiously against it either. Tske care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of this template is clearly written to not be used for anything other than a neutral alert, you really shouldn't be using it for your tit for tat idea of using DS alerts. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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

request for administrator action

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 edit is a personal attack not referring to any particular matter on the talk page where it sits. I avoid responding to personal attacks, but at last I seem to need to respond to this one. As I understand Wikipedia policy, personal attacks are deprecated. I think this edit should be deleted or archived or otherwise removed from the talk page where it sits. A week ago, on the talk page of the author of the attack, I requested that he remove his attack, but he seems to be currently inactive on Wikipedia. Perhaps a suitable administrator will kindly remove the attack.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It's twelve months old. Get over it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I would have left a comment asking the user not to fan the flames by adding a response in that manner if their comment was made recently, but it was not and was made just shy of a year ago. I think the best thing for you to do is ignore it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

At the time I did nothing about this edit because I have a policy of avoiding personal interactions. But the edit seems now to continue to actively damage my standing in the eyes of editors who read that page but do not really respect the Wikipedia policy of avoiding personal attacks; it seems that they do not ignore it. If it ought to be ignored after a year, can it also be removed after a year? I would like it to be removed.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I threw that section to that pages archive however that's about all there is to do, there is no deletion grounds here. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Dilidor

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 page Narragansett people has been closed to editing following an edit war between myself and User:Dilidor, in which Dilidor broke the three revert rule. The state of the page at the time of the freeze was nonetheless that of Dilidor's illegal revert. I am requesting that the page be restored to the state of my last edit, and that Dilidor be sanctioned for uncivil behavior and for violating 3RR.

The edit war began when Dilidor reverted wholesale a series of edits made by me, with no explanation other than a claim in the edit summary box that my work was "original research". I reverted his revert, referring the matter to the article's Talk page, where I replied to Dilidor's allegation of original research by showing that Dilidor had misread my citation, mistaking a citation to a reliable historian for a citation to an original document. I also pointed out that the prior state of the article, whose last editor prior to me was Dilidor himself, was deficient, in that a historical claim was made without adequate reference and without even clearly explicitating its own argument. My added material was in large measure intended to remedy this deficiency.

I then made several new edits to address Dilidor's concern, making my reference to the accepted historian more obvious and moving a fair amount of material into footnotes so as to restore the concise flow of the article as it had stood prior to my edits.

Dilidor then reverted again, and left a note on the Talk page which was rude and did not acknowledge the substance of my defense of my edit. I reverted his revert a second time, leaving a more extensive justification of my position in the Talk page, in which I invited Dilidor to modify what he found objectionable in my edits, without resorting to another wholesale revert.

Dilidor nonetheless reverted wholesale a third time, breaking 3RR, and with no further explanation other than the "all-caps" statement in the edit summary: "THIS IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH". This was both unreasonable and uncivil.

Minutes later an administrator blocked the page to new edits for a week.

I agree to the block, provided that the state of the page be returned to that of my last (legal) edit. I also request that Dilidor be sanctioned appropriately for uncivil behavior and violation of 3RR.

-Wwallacee (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Settle it on the article's talk page, WP:NORN, or WP:DRN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

IP leaving vicious edit summaries

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.

---

Special:Contributions/157.48.78.137. Not sure where to report this or what to do. Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Now, I have to put Pomelo and Kumquat on my watch list. Thanks a lot! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why Kumquat was on my watchlist. Was it the subject of a noticeboard report at some point? Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not remember that, Softlavender, but with both of us watching, I am hoping that we can deter the vandals attacking our articles on exotic citrus fruits. Citron and Buddha's hand may be next! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It was on mine as well. If I remember, there was a bunch of nonsense on it a few years back due to something on a TV programme (or summat like that). Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Still doesn't ring a bell. I did find this ... interesting ... edit summary, though, from January 2017: "Removing link(s) to 'Taiwan': Danish dog Favonian" [167]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And apparently that was not an aberration: [168]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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

WP: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.

---

Could please an admin take a look at this (four reverts within 24 hours to push an unsourced POV while sources have been provided on the talk proving he's wrong), this (edit warring to push his POV with unreliable sources while he got blocked by Number57 in june for the exact same reason : [169]) and this (edit warring on my talk while i asked him to stop). Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

1) No consensus has been found therefore no editing should be done. you started edit warring without participating in the discussions juste because you wanted to help your friend.

2) I think Wikipedia doesn't give you the right to delete another user's comment.

3) Admins have to also look at this article(link), where you started editing without giving enough time to discuss the propositions in the talk page.

4) how do you judge wether a source is reliable or not? I don't think you have the ability to do that especially that I brought 8 different sources, you cannot just decide that they are all unreliable.--History21st (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at anything else, but @History21st: users are allowed to delete comments on their own user talk pages. It is considered an acknowledgement that they have received the message. See WP:OWNTALK. Restoring the message is considered harassment and does not help your case. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• This editor was blocked for a week after edit-warring on Nur ad-Din al-Bitruji in June, they were unblocked after agreeing to a 0RR restriction but then didn't edit again, until appearing a few days ago and starting to edit-war on the same article again. They then followed this by breaking 3RR on the article mentioned above. I have blocked for a month this time. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Impersonator

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 a huge problem as a new editor has registered under the name of User:HotWiki2 and its not me. This user is impersonating as me, copying/pasting my userpage into his/her userpage. Then goes to vandalise the articles that he/she edited by posting fake information. I don't want editors/Admins to confuse me with that impersonator. I suspect this is an editor that was blocked before, so could an admin please IP check the impersonator. Thanks.Hotwiki (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Please remove TPA

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

---

Can someone please remove User:Assmuncha's talk page access? They are making obviously trollish unblock requests. funplussmart (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Courcelles (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

• It is my painful duty to point out that User:Assmunchas first edit was to the article Tailgate party. EEng 05:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man

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 Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this user is harassing and baiting me, and that he has violated previous sanctions requesting his civility. He and I have had some bad blood for awhile, stemming largely from some disagreements he and I had at some FARs in years past. He has also done this to other users in the past few weeks (part of a years-long pattern of being completely inept at getting along with the rest of the community), and this discussion could potentially be extended to his conduct with other users. I have tried to discuss this with TRM on his talk page, but he claims ANY comment (even comments in direct response to his behavior) are harassment and has adamantly refused to do anything approaching meeting me halfway. I would like this body to impose a two-way interaction ban between the two of us. pbp 21:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of TRM’s HOUNDing

1. Removal of Purplebackpack89’s comments from a third-editor’s talk page. Generally, removing comments from talk pages other than your own is a no-no, and given TRM's history with me, it seems odd he'd just randomly pop in there and delete a comment of mine out of the blue...unless he wanted to make good on his promise of getting me indeffed.
2. Participation in a 3RR discussion against Purplebackpack89, after the discussion had been closed by User:SarekOfVulcan. This is especially irregular considering that TRM had edited the 3RR noticeboard ONCE in the last three months prior to comment on the Philip 3RR report. He’d also never edited the Philip II article., nor edited the article's talk page prior to commenting on the 3RR report. That's more than coincidence, sorry. It seems 100% reasonable to consider the possibility that TRM threw in to try and BAIT me into something he could take to ANI...which he's now done. pbp 21:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
3. A few days ago, TRM started a rant against VA5. This shortly after PBP mentioning VA5 in a ITN rationale. Again, TRM throwing in in an area he KNOWS PBP to be involved. Eventually, TRM shows up to VA5, his first comment being highly unproductive, almost demanding that VA5 be deleted. More recently, TRM refers to VA5 as PBP honeypot bullshit. His pattern of interaction toward VA5 suggests that one motivation for being there is to make trouble, especially for Purplebackpack89. The “honeypot bullshit” is probably also a violation of TRM’s civility restrictions. pbp 21:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Interaction ban between User:The Rambling Man and User:Purplebackpack89

I think it’s blatantly clear that any further interaction between TRM and I is unproductive. Mostly, it just leads to us yelling past each other. I proposed the standard tenets of an interaction ban between TRM and myself pbp 21:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 21:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is a stupid question on my part, but have you tried just not communicating with TRM? You don't need a formal ban to decline to communicate with and ignore someone. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• @331dot: I tried that (for, example, I did not post on his talk page in response to his "PBP honeypot bullshit" comment) and he insists on intentionally inserting himself into what I'm doing. We're past the point where that's the solution: it's either IBAN or block TRM at this point. I avoided taking this to ANI for as long as I could. pbp 21:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• My suggestion would be to let the community decide on an appropriate way to deal with this. It's appropriate for you to suggest an IBAN may be the way to go, but to actually formally propose it, not so much. It is really the community's purview to decide how to solve problems, not one of the parties to the problem. Ask that this subsection be closed and discussion ensue in a natural progression. John from Idegon (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Further discussion

• @John from Idegon and Purplebackpack89: This concept that it's inappropriate for a complainant to propose a sanction...I don't get it. There's nothing wrong for a user to come here with a proposed sanction to go with their complaint. If anything, it's encouraged, and we want more users to be doing this sort of thing. If someone thinks they have a better remedy to counter with, by all means, make a better proposal, but don't shut down the only proposed remedy with a point of order reasoning. Swarm ♠ 22:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm taking that as a reason to withdraw my withdrawal. It was confusing anyway; an admin almost archived the whole shebang. pbp 22:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm no fan of TRM, but I'm not seeing anything remotely approaching sanctionable conduct here. Given his well-known extreme interest in the main page and the processes that lead to content appearing on it, it's only natural that once it were proposed that the (IMO ridiculous) WP:VITAL list should have a bearing on whether something should be featured on the main page, he'd immediately pop over to WP:VITAL to investigate it, and comment on what he felt was right/wrong with it. Likewise, since TRM was reported to ANEW relatively recently, I don't see it as at all suspicious that he'd have the page on his watchlist. Your diff regarding the removal of your comment from a talkpage would potentially be troubling, but what you've (no doubt unintentionally) failed to mention is that the incident in question was more than a year ago. To be frank, this looks to me like you desperately fishing for a pretext to get him into trouble and hope that nobody checks your diffs too closely, and not the other way round. ‑ Iridescent 2 22:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent 2: If I wanted to get him in trouble, I'd be asking for a block. No, what I want is a lack of interference from him. He's being a dick to me, just like he's been a dick to pretty much everyone I interact with, and I'm sick and tired of it! pbp 23:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, Purplebackpack89, in that first incident that happened nearly 13 months ago, you did not leave an actual comment on another editor's talk page, but instead you dropped a warning template there. A template is not a comment. I suggest that you follow the wise advice at Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. On the broader matter, most experienced editors know that TRM can sometimes be prickly. I suggest that you observe a self-imposed one-way interaction ban for 90 days. If you have better evidence of unacceptable behavior by TRM at that time, come back to ANI then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: What do you consider a one-sided interaction ban? I hope it's not letting TRM walk all over me and be a prick to me for three months? If he starts aggressively making proposals at VA, am I supposed to quit VA? How is a one-way interaction ban fair in the slightest? It essentially affords TRM a sort of heckler's veto. pbp 23:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you realize how badly you are damaging your own case by carrying on like this, Purplebackpack89? It is not helpful in any way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, please clarify what you mean by one-sided interaction ban. And, while you’re at it, give one iota of evidence that TRM being allowed to continue interacting with me would be productive in the slightest. As for helping my case, I’m VERY pissed right now. TRM has driven me roughly to the point Crisco was when he quit the project. And I’m receiving zero sympathy from this noticeboard. pbp 23:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

One-way IBAN is exactly what it sounds like, one person can’t interact with the other but the reverse does not apply to the other person. Basically, it means avoid TRM. Also, TRM didn’t actually do anything wrong to Crisco, he was just attempting to maintain core content standards on the main page, and Crisco’s response was inappropriate and irrational. Not a good example to compare yourself to. Swarm ♠ 00:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: OK, Crisco may not have the best example, but I could find others driven off the project more unjustly were I so minded. Does that mean I should avoid specific article-space, talk-space or Wikipedia-space pages? What am I supposed to do if TRM reverts my comments again or otherwise inserts himself where I am? Come back here and find out nobody cares and it's open season for TRM to do whatever he wants to me? pbp 00:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It means you avoid interactions, period. So, hypothetically, if you were enforcing a voluntary one-way IBAN, that means you quite simply wouldn’t react or respond in any way if TRM were to revert you. The implication associated with this suggestion is, of course, that TRM isn’t the problem, and that your accusations here are inappropriate and nobody’s buying into them, and that the appropriate resolution is for you to simply leave TRM alone voluntarily. It’s not meant to be agreeable for you, it’s meant to give you a chance to do avoid getting yourself in trouble over this. Swarm ♠ 01:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to try and avoid TRM. He reverting me isn't me avoiding him and it's certainly not him avoiding me. The terms you offer are ridiculous, inaccurate and unfair. I'm not going to voluntarily agree to them, and I don't think anybody would. That being said, I will close this discussion. pbp 01:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Iridescent 2, that ANEW report is from June 2017, hardly recent. This sure looks like a "throw shit against the wall, see if any of it sticks" kind of report, and the more you look, the less and less water any of it holds. Courcelles (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please don't mix fecal metaphors with water metaphors. Yuck. EEng 23:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Continued editing against consensus

Vjmlhds has been blocked on 10 separate occasions due to his edit warring. I raised this issue last month here that he was still continuing to edit war against consensus, see here [170]. In response the user stated he would back off and stop editing that topic, yet yesterday he made the exact same edit again, against the established consensus on 4 separate articles, see [171] [172] [173] and [174]. It is very clear that this user has not and will not learn. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I said I wasn't going to get involved in the 205 Live debate, and I lived up to that. If you look at the revision history of all of the said articles, it was others who made 205 Live it's own section. My issue was that in Galetz' zealously he undid a bunch of unrelated edits that reflected recent happenings not involving 205 Live. He was basically throwing the baby out with the bath water because he was so hung up on the 205 Live thing. Also, Galetz has been warned about edit warring on his talk page (by another editor), so if you look at it, he is the one with the issue, not me. I lived up to my word, and stuck by it. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. I reverted to the last stable version and then went back in and put back the edits that were valid. You however restored it to its own section, which per established consensus is incorrect. If you think I missed something valid than put that back, not the wrong edits.

• Lets look at the first edit [175]. You removed a tag without addressing the concerns. About 75% of the sources are primary which is way too many. Then you moved 205 live back to its own section. Then you put a huge picture of Rhea Ripley back into the middle of the article with just her name next to it, clearly thats wrong too. So what exactly did I miss?
• Now lets take a look at the second one [176]. Once again you incorrectly made 205 live its own section. You added an extra line that isn't needed back into the table. Once again what did I miss?
• The third [177] you added just the incorrect table back and an unsourced claim.
• The fourth an final one [178], you only moved it back into its own section.

So what exactly did I miss? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If you did put back things you cut off, then I was in error. My intent wasn't about 205 Live, just the stuff that happened afterwords. My only suggestion in the future would be that if 205 Live is separated out again (which I had then and have now no intent on doing...as I said, I wasn't the one who separated it in the 1st place) that you just be a little more careful in making sure there isn't collateral damage with other things...just gotta watch, that's all (goes for both of us). Vjmlhds (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No matter who put it there in the first place you blindly restored it. You are responsible for every edit you make. Just like how you continued removal of this tag [179] is a violation of policy without addressing the concern. I have reminded you before we have a style guide that this is in violation of. Just because you don't view it as overly detailed, it is larger than the recommended length and someone else clearly disagrees with you. You need to follow the proper steps for removal, not just making unilateral decisions that it is ok to remove. - 14:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You got me...I'm a flawed editor. Not everyone can be perfect. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You literally removed it after I mentioned in ANI that you incorrectly removed it. That is not a flaw, its not caring. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Off topic musings

Ah yes, another day, another tussle over "pro" wrestling "champions". See right. This is really getting beyond ridiculous. EEng 18:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Another day another WP:UNCIVIL comment that adds nothing to the discussion by EEng - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC) No, no, you misunderstand me. I think it's great that you're back on a weekly basis with a new argument over whether the cruiserweight title is being defended on pay-per-view, or whatever it is. This is worse than longevity. EEng 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC) User:EEng, don't be such an elitist spoilsport. At least it's not MMA. BTW, I hear that that is actually real. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC) The awful thing about "professional" wrestling is that it's fake; the awful thing about MMA is that it's real. EEng 02:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Galatz EEng You two always seem to find each other. Seriously, on one side there's someone like Gomer Pyle on that one episode of the Andy Griffith Show when he kept yelling "Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest!" when Barney Fife made that U-turn (kinda like needless ANIs for minor issues), and on the other side, there's a Holden Caufield-esque cynical iconoclast who is saying "Look at the rubes fighting over wrestling again." Not being uncivil, just trying to make a point - Galetz, not every little thing needs to go straight to ANI, and EEng, not everything requires commentary from the stands. So let's just drop the whole stinking issue and live happily ever after...OK? Vjmlhds (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Per WP:UNCIVIL Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person. How does EEng responding to anything related to PW that comes here with the same negative comments not violate the parts I bolded? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Galatz I'm agreeing with you...I told EEng straight out that him making his snarky comments wasn't needed. When I said "not being uncivil" I was referring to me, in that I wasn't trying to be uncivil when I was pointing out your and his approaches, just saying that none of it was necessary. You do come off sometimes like a Wiki hall monitor, and EEng comes off as a smart aleck...neither helps anybody. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I love it when someone can't even tell you're agreeing with them. Holden Caufield ... I like it! [180] EEng 19:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Ruth Wisenheimer

-EEng

Hey, Dr. Ruth lives in my neighborhood; my wife saw her on the street just the other day! BMK

EEng Don't get me wrong, I think Galatz is a bit over the top with his strict rigidity to WP:(insert guideline here), but throwing gas on the fire with snarky comments from the sidelines doesn't help either. So just cool it with the wisenheimer act, OK. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

On the bright side, you two finally agreed on something, perhaps a first step towards a more peaceful coexistence between you? One can hope.  MPJ-DK  20:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Just remember - I'm not the one issuing ANIs at every little drop of a hat. Galatz needs to learn that not everything needs to go right to red alert. Having said that, third party snark doesn't help. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I dont run to ANI at the drop of a hat, you have been blocked 10 times for this stuff, and you said a month ago you would stop when brought here for the exact same thing. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And hope goes out the window. So what can we expect now? Anything constructive or just repeating what has already been said?  MPJ-DK  21:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

See what I mean...I explained myself, I did not do anything regarding 205 Live stuff specifically, it was just caught in the mix of other edits that I was more concerned with. And I even talked to EEng to lay off with his sarcasm. Nothing seems to register. I don't look to have beef with anyone, but I also don't appreciate needless ANIs for minor issues. This is what I mean by being a Wiki hall monitor - it's not beneficial to anything or anybody (and neither is snarky commentary). I'll make it simple...Galatz leaves me alone, I'll leave him alone (on top of getting EEng to back off) Not that hard. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Enough is enough and it's time for a change

With apologies to Owen Hart for stealing his catchphrase but this is getting ri-damn-diculous.

• Vjmlhds - You can try and throw "blame" on someone else and distract everyone, the fact of the matter is that you broke the voluntary agreement you made - you can state for whatever reasons you want, you can try to explain it, bottom line you promised to leave it alone and you did not. You have zero credibility at this point in time and should be looking at some sort of sanction for the repeated transgressions. Honestly for other repeat offenders there would be a TBAN or a long term block in place already.
• This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. - my emphasis - those that complain that this is at ANI again need to take part of the blame for it being here again - derailing the conversation with snark and off-topic bickering does not help. The fact that this has been brought here multiple times and nothing has been done is in part a failure of everyone who are supposed to try and resolve these issues. The fact that you are blaming the reporter here is tantamount to blaming a prosecutor because a repeat offender is in court for the 10th time, it's misdirected.
• Could Galatz perhaps use a little common sense and flexibility in his/her thinking? yes, agreed, but neglecting the actual issue does not make it go away
• EEng - here is the part that would make you happy, if this gets a permanent resolution (TBAN, Block, whatevs) then you will not see this topic come up again and again, so perhaps we can work towards something that will actually make a difference?
• I am a grumpy old man and you guys are forcing me to get out of my recliner, better be worth it by actually putting an end to this facade.  MPJ-DK  23:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I just came off a 4 1/2 month block...I don't need to go through that again. No ill will was meant on my part, I just made a mistake. So if we arrive here again, I'll take a topic ban/block with no arguments if it'll keep the peace. I'll stick my neck on the line to end this, if it will END THIS. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

All you had to do was leave it alone, it really was that simple.  MPJ-DK  23:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

OK...from here forward, I will leave it alone, I didn't think we'd be at this point to begin with. This is getting ridiculous, you're right about that, and I will do my part to end it, and I will take a block if I break my word, so I'm putting my neck out to prove I do want this over with Vjmlhds (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

So could we perhaps put this to rest now? Neutral corners, go back and be productive participants in our little corner of Wikipedia?  MPJ-DK  00:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright so here we are Galatz, the proposal on the table is that he backs off, we get peace and everyone goes back to editing? In addition if there is a slip up again in regards to the Cruiserweight/205 situation hit me up on my talk page and then I will take it here to ANI to get a long-term block enforced? Can we "hat" this and move on?  MPJ-DK  00:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The person who brings it here is really not the issue. They were unblocked because they promised to stop, a month ago they promised to stop, today they promised to stop. How many chances does a person need? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

So that is a no to "move on" then? Your choice I guess.  MPJ-DK  18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing unreasonable about that proposed solution, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why Galatz would reject it. MPJ-DK, thanks for trying. Swarm ♠ 19:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

Given that these two users (Vjmlhds and Galatz) seem to constantly find each other, and, indeed, constantly find themselves at ANI, I feel that their interactions with one another are producing more heat than light. Thus, I propose a two-way IBan in the hopes that, perhaps, we won't see these editors at ANI at least once a month. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - does not address the reported problem but punishes the reporter for repeately reporting someone who has repeatedly done the same thing.  MPJ-DK  22:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - If either or both can be shown to have misbehaved (e.g. broken policies or guidelines), then block one or both accordingly. One of the editors in question has only been blocked once years ago (for 48 hours in 2014) while the other has been blocked many times (most recently for 6 months in mid-2017); there is likely a problem with one side of this dispute and not the other. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Icarosaurvus, you should really include a number of diffs in your proposal for making it look convincing. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User:SpongePete2P has requested he be blocked

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.

---

• SpongePete2P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is courtesy post regarding SpongePete2P who has requested he be blocked.[181] I actually think he's serious. SpongePete2P has been a problematic editor who seems obsessed with splitting articles prematurely, without attribution or any discussion. He has been given advice and warned on numerous occasions (I think Diannaa was the first to warn him about copying within Wikipedia.[182]) yet just doesn't seem to get it, even after 3 years of editing here. I see persistent competency issues with this editor. Just recently he has been splitting content from SEAL Team (TV series) to SEAL Team (season 1) and even though he has been warned about the need to provide attribution, he just keep doing the same thing.[183][184][185] He's also made similar edits at other pages like NCIS: Los Angeles (season 10). There are quite a few examples in his contribution history. Thewolfchild has suggested, more than once, that he participate in a mentorship program,[186][187] but he doesn't seem interested. Instead he requested that he be blocked,[188] which resulted in an appropriate reply by an obviously amazed Thewolfchild,[189] but I think SpongePete2P might be onto something. If he is so lacking in self-control that he asks someone else to stop him, maybe his request should be granted. It would certainly result in less work for other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Self-block denied, but user blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Swarm ♠ 22:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Swarm, that was actually the better way to go. - wolf 22:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Russian Orthodox cross and User:W

User:W persistently pushes his opinion about the article name diff_1, diff_2, diff_3 against last community decision of move request (diff) and against the majority of provided reliable sources. Moreover User:W started a new move request without new sources or arguments and now doesn't participate in discussion. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as edit warring goes, that's pretty slow moving, but it is still disruptive. I have left a warning about edit warring on his user talk page, as it does not seem anyone has done so yet. --Jayron32 15:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sullivan9211 and college football national championships

Sullivan9211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Long-standing and ongoing issues around college football national championship content, including WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:DE, and WP:SOCK.

See College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS as a topic primer as helpful

• There are numerous "selectors" who independently select college football champion(s) each year
• Multiple champions from multiple selectors is a common occurrence in any given year
• Associated Press (1936–present) and Coaches Poll (1950–present) are the de facto selectors in public perception
• There can ambiguity about whether a national championship is claimed or unclaimed by the school, often tied to the reputation of the selector; The CFB project use "claimed" and "unclaimed" accordingly, but an unclaimed championships is equally recognized as having been awarded in our articles
• The NCAA has designated ~20 "major selectors" and reports their national champion selections in its annual yearbook, pg 108-117
• It is very easy to confirm selections and source citation of "major selectors" with a google search for almost any era

January 2018 SOCK investigation

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sullivan9211/Archive

• SOCK investigation from January 2018 - re Washington Huskies football
• Diffs for DE and V re removal of cited content [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197]
• SOCK covers use of 2nd account and at least one IP
• Admin states, "This is patently transparent. What do you have to say?" [198]
• Editor did not directly respond to question from admin. Only response was "I admit that I didn't handle this well. When I edited anything related to the Washington Huskies football pages I backed it up with sources from the University of Washington website. But then my edits were changed almost right after. I then read the guidelines on editing and posting sources. I posted the source and an email I received from the Athletic Department of the University of Washington. How much more do I have to go?"[199] Emphasis is mine re NOR and understandings sourcing, after being an active editor since 2006.[200]

Army Black Knights football

• 7 November 2009 - Removes 1946 national championship[201]
• 1 February 2010‎ - Removes 1914 and readds 1946 without a new citation[202]
• 24 August 2010 - Removes 1914 and 1916[203]

The 2011 NCAA Yearbook per pg 72-73 states 1914, 1916, and 1946 national championships (as does the current 2018 yearbook).

Auburn Tigers football

• 11 January 2011 - Removes Billingsley, Poling, and Williamson among others as selections from 1957[204]

The 2011 NCAA Yearbook per pg 74 states 1957 - "Billingsley, Poling, and Williamson"

Talk 2017 UCF Knights football team

• 10 January 2018 - Posts re a content dispute, "The Colley Matrix is NOT a major selector by the NCAA according to their record books for the 2016 season."[205]
• Another editor's reply "The Colley Matrix is indeed a major selector. It's listed as "Wes Colley" (the creator of the matrix) in the NCAA record book."[206]
• Replies "I stand corrected. I looked over it and confirmed it. Thank you."[207]

Knute Rockne

• 26 February 2018 - Removed national champions text by changing "The [[1919 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team|1919 team]] had Rockne handle the line and [[Gus Dorais]] handle the backfield. The team went undefeated <u>and was a national champion.</u>" to "...The team finished the season undefeated."[208]
  • Note, February 2018 version of 1919 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team states national champions in lede paired with citation and within infobox.
  • Is reverted with "Consensus NC from NCAA"[209]
• 2 April 2018 - Again removes the "...and was a national champion" text.[210]
• 11 April 2018 - Is reverted again "revert again, per NCAA cite in article"[211]
  • Readds with a pageless citation - "...was a national champion but Notre Dame doesn't recognize it as such.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nd/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2016-17/misc_non_event/16-media-guide.pdf|title=2016 Media Guide Notre Dame Football|publisher=University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish Media|accessdate=April 11, 2018}}</ref>"[212]
  • Cite and copy were cleaned[213]

The 2018 NCAA Yearbook per pg 111 states Notre Dame's 1919 national championship.

Maryland Terrapins football

• 12 December 2009 - Reduces Maryland's national championship count from 2 to 1[214] while leaving both 1951 and 1953 intact elsewhere in the article.
• 6 November 2011 - Same, removes from some but not all locations[215]
  • Removes 1951 from relevant template[216]
• 10 December 2013 - Again removes 1951 from infobox (but not relevant template) [217]
• 12 August 2018 - Moves 1951 into a new/atypical "Unclaimed National championship" section[218]
  • Removes 1951 from relevant template [219]

The 2011 NCAA Yearbook per pg 73-74 states 1951 and 1953 championships (as does the current 2018 yearbook).

Missouri Tigers football

• 18 August 2018 - Changed header to "Unclaimed National championship"[220] which is non-standard within Wikipedia:WikiProject College football treatment, does not introduce a supporting citation, or resolve the article/infobox discrepancy of 2 vs 3.

Ohio State Buckeyes football

• 5 August 2008 - Re 1970, removes NFF and keeps FWAA[221]

The 2011 NCAA Yearbook per pg 74 states NFF is valid and FWAA is invalid (as does the current 2018 yearbook).

Purdue Boilermakers football

• 31 August 2018 - Removes 1931 national championship[222]
  • Note, the 1931 Purdue Boilermakers football team article states "Parke Davis" national championship

The 2018 NCAA Yearbook per pg 112 states 1931 Parke Davis championship

Texas A&M Aggies football

• 27 August 2012 - Sequential edits change TAMU's claimed national championship count from 1/2 to 3 with new cite ("Texas A&M football claims one national title" to "Texas A&M football claims three national title"[SIC]) [223]
  • Note, the new citation contains no pg paramter, however that document states on pg 150 "National Championship Teams.......1 ..............1939".

27 August 2012 - Editors use multiple reverts with edit summaries:

• "Please read the 2012 Texas A&M media guide that you cited: Texas A&M claims precisely ONE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. Please see page 152." [224]
• "Again, Texas A&M claims exactly ONE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP per the 2012 media guide that was previously used to source 3 claimed NCs. Please quit inserting misleading information without valid sources per WP:V and WP:RS."[225]
• "Please see page 152 of the 2012 Texas A&M football media guide footnoted in the national championship section. A&M does not claim the 1917, 1919 or 1927 seasons as NCs. Thanks."[226]
• "edit section header to acknowledge that Texas A&M does not claim national championships for 1917, 1919 and 1927."[227]

Washington Huskies football

Per SOCK section at top and those DE/V/NOR diffs

Talk DE/NOR/TBAN warnings

• 24 December 2017 - Vandalism warning [228]
  • Replies with OR justification[229]
  • Same [230]
  • Same [231]

• 9 January 2018 - DE warning[232]
  • Replies with OR justification[233]
  • Requested to read DE, NOR, and review College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS[234]

• 13 January 2018 - Editor engages in OR[235]
  • Same[236]
    • Reply asking to review both NOR and the prior 9 January 2018 NOR callout made on their Talk[237]
  • Same[238]

• 12 April 2018 - DE3 warning, "You may wish to read WP:TBAN as relates to your ongoing inability to accurately edit CFB national championship content."[239]
  • Editor's reply "So I guess when I source my material from the University of Notre Dame's own website, it is wrong. Only YOU can decide if the material is accurate."[240];
  • My reply "There was no sourcing offered in either[241] [242] of your WP:DE edits."[243]

The long-standing pattern in the topic area includes DE of reaching a conclusion and repeatedly inserting that content after being reverted, incorrect content removal while ignoring existing citations, misreading citations, adding content without new citations, not using pg parameters within new citations, infrequent use of article or user Talk to resolve[244], lack of collaborative edit summaries when changing this content, and no clear improvement in skills over time. At this point, the editor is demonstrably creating much more cleanup work within this narrow topic than they are contributing to the topic within our articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a LOT of text. Can you sum things up a bit better? --Tarage (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• You are going to have to tell us what you want (I don't know what you're asking for), you need to do it economically, and you need to do with recent evidence. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

So when I cite the actual Media Guides for the universities in question with page numbers, I guess that is not enough. The original research IS the media guides that are on the universities' websites. I'm following the guidelines for cites that on wikipedia's pages. Is there anything else I can do. In regards to the national championships for universities, on the recognized championships, I only put those that the university itself recognizes. The unclaimed championships are pretty much left alone by me. I hope this helps. Sullivan9211 (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2018 (CST)

• Comment Some of this is ancient history. Are we talking about a multi-year pattern of disruptive editing that warrants a CBan or indefinite block? If not, I tend to consider behavior that is more than two years old and not naked vandalism as water under the bridge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Collard Greens & Gravy

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

---

A series of edits by User:Ian.Collard10 in March 2018 resulted in copy violations, which were removed by other editors. The user name is essentially the same as a band member. Disruptive edits followed in September of this year. This editor has repeatedly returned content, which I have added with support by reliable sources. The editor then adds material, which is not supported. I have repeatedly asked this editor to discuss the issues on the article's talkpage but when they reply they resort to accusing me of being connected to the band and of being the disruptive editor!shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

After seeing what's going on here, I'm hoping to help the user through all this (permanent link), but that probably depends on whether they can remain unblocked and available for help while I'm gone. It'll be up to them whether they do. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC); updated permanent link at 13:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your intercession. I hope the editor replies on the article's talk page about making constructive changes to the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Racist POV pushing

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.

---

DrPepper47 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in racist POV pushing since they created their account, as evidenced by the following diffs:

• Apparent POV pushing via images at Shooting of Trayvon Martin. [245]
• Whitewashing fringe beliefs about the civil war at Neo-Confederate: [246] [247]
• Whitewashing at Confederate States of America: [248] (note the attribution of the claims DrPepper attached the {{cn}} tag to) [249]
• Poorly sourced and OR-interpreted addition of purported anti-white crimes at Racism in the United States: [250]
• Whitewashing at Flags of the Confederate States of America: [251]
• Engaging in WP:SYNTH to criticize the Black Panther Party: [252]
• Inserting copyvios for the same purpose as the previous item: [253]
• Insertion of (obviously) WP:UNDUE material for the same purpose as the previous item: [254]
• Attempting to soften criticism of the Merton thesis (often cited to support white supremacist arguments): [255]

In addition, their participation at Talk:Race and intelligence at the sections Consider merging this with the page on Scientific racism, Archaeological data and Group differences and scientific consensus has consisted almost entirely of willful dishonesty and gross misrepresentation of sources. I suggest this editor be indeffed as they are clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute to this project, but to push their POV on articles involving the Confederacy and race. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I agree in all respects, a clear case of NOTHERE. Blocked indef. Nice example of outlining years of evidence in an easy to understand, concise format, MPants. Courcelles (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Alliance (band)

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 been new page patrolling and came across this page - could an admin take a look at its deleted history and see if it's the same or similar to the current version? If so, the article will need to be G4'd, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance (band). Otherwise, I'll probably tag it for {{refimprove}} and {{notability}}, and then mark it as reviewed (or possible initiate another deletion discussion).--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It was almost a word for word copy, changing just the external link to the band's site. I have deleted per G4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Tricky one. It's exactly the same article except for the addition of the discogs source. Now, last time it was deleted for WP:V reasons, but the discogs source does indicate that the band did exist and released records, and if they did, they may well be notable per WP:BAND#6 because all the members have articles themselves ... though there amy be a bit of a walled garden going on here ... I suspect it would have to go back to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd be willing to undelete and send to AfD if you like then? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    • No, leave it for the time being. We're not exactly losing much from a one paragraph stub. Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Impersonator account adding WP:OR

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

---

We have an impersonator account of Uanfala who is repeatedly edit warring and adding poorly-sourced WP:OR to Arif Alvi. Some action would be appreciated. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This account is possibly connected also, given their same original research on Talk:Arif Alvi. Mar4d (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Good calls on both points. Both accounts blocked, one as a confirmed sock. Courcelles (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Appreciated, thanks for your prompt action. Mar4d (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Christianity and antisemitism 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.

---

Moved from WP:AN# Christianity and antisemitism Page. – Joe (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Page claims Christians humiliated and murdered Jews for two millennia “Culminating in the Holocaust”. Many Jews were and are Christians. Christianity was founded by Jews, and many Jews that died in the Holocaust were Christians.

When I attempted to talk to יניב הורון about it, he deleted it, calling it ‘garbage’.

Blaming an entire religion for the Holocaust is not only discrimination, but it makes zero sense. I’m not debating other lower parts on the page discussing if Christians played parts or should have done more, but it makes absolutely no sense.

It was not until Darwin and Nietzsche came along that such murder was done. Christians and Jews lived together for two millennia without anything like this happening.

As for sources, someone could source racist materials and say that such and such group is inferior or deserves to die. Just having a source does not precede the fact that it is a harmful non-truth to that group or race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C40B:FF5F:F8E5:656A:48A1:75A9 (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• A claim that "Christianity was the cause of the Holocaust" is such an extraordinary claim that it would need an extraordinary source to even try to put such a claim in the article, I don't think such a source even exists. But in the end that is a content dispute unless that user has made personal attacks or broken some of Wikipedia's rules. Has the user in question done any of this? If so please provide links to examples of this behavior.  MPJ-DK  01:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe the sentence the IP user is complaining about is "The action taken by Christians against Jews included acts of ostracism, humiliation and violence, and murder culminating in the Holocaust." and it is supported by sources. I also note persistent removal of the sentence by a variety of IP addresses resulting in the page being protected and refusal by any of the IP addresses to start a discussion on the Christianity and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) talk page (a similar collection of IP addresses with some overlap has been doing the same on the Ravi Zacharias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page). Also the user he is complaining about seems to be יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is not an admin. This complaint seems to be in the wrong place --Erp (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Doug Weller: blocked one of the IP involved (in this user TP post) for 1 month. It would seem that IPs in this range have been edit-warring vs. multiple users in at least 2 3 articles (also in Colonization of Mars), and continuing to edit under a different 64-bit IP after the previous one had been blocked would be block evasion, if I understand policy correctly.Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• So Darwin and Nietzsche are the real culprits, then? EEng 06:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

As was stated, this would need a massive source, and apparently isn’t even backed up by the sources on the page. The statement should probably be changed or deleted. It’s bigoted and not backed up by sources... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C40B:FF5F:F8E5:656A:48A1:75A9 (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• This is clearly block evasion by 2602:306:C57A:470::/64, who is continuing the same disruptive behavior. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks for blocking this new range. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• ... Til? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Saladin1987

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.

---

• Saladin1987 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Saladin1987 has been entirely disruptive. Talk page is full of warnings with one IP noting last year that "Are we going to actually do something about it or just continue warning this user indefinitely?"[256]

Saladin1987 continues to add content not supported by source. He has been warned often, and even had the "last warning" that "next time you change sourced content to something the source clearly does not support .... I will block you from editing. In view of your history, it will be a long block."[257] but this pattern continues.

Yesterday he misrepresented a source on Chanakya for a name,[258] claiming that the person was born in " Takshashila(Present-day Taxila, Pakistan)", however the source states "a village in the Golla district".[259]

After his edits were reverted on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,[260] he started to engage in blatant canvassing with his IP,[261] the message reads "issue on page are indian nationalists... people could not be misled by indian propaganda".[262] He got a reply,[263] to which he responded with his account as "but indian wikipedians can collectively propogate their agenda".[264]

He relies on WP:OR. One example shows he edit warred, because he "have reservations as i personally know he is Rajput Punjabi."[265]

He was also warned about copyright violation a few months ago [266] but he is still violating them as recently as yesterday.[267] Lorstaking (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I am also noting that Saladin1987 was topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan (WP:ARBIPA) for 6 months in 2016.[268] He had violated the topic ban as well but he was only warned for that.[269]

Just like he violated copyrights on Gilgit-Baltistan on 31 August 2018,[270] he had violated copyrights on this same article back in 2016.[271] Lorstaking (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I agree, the user is introducing deliberate factual errors in historical articles along with Copyvios, some of which I reverted. His talk page history is filled with so many warnings but the user doesn't really seem to care much about what others have to say WP:IDHT. An Indef is expected. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• To see the full extent of Saladin1987's activitites and the warnings he has received you need to check the page history of his talk page, because he has a habit of regularly removing all warnings and admonishments, while keeping trivial bot messages etc, to make it seem as if he has never received any warnings. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why Saladin1987 should not be INDEF'd? After 5 yrs of OR, removing referenced information, and clear Battleground comments, I do not see any reason to allow this editor to continue editing here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Somebody just removed all my comments. What more can i say. All the edits that i did were sourced and the examples provided in this conversation can verify that i sourced my information, but they were reverted and i did not do any reverts to them. Also some people are saying that i have done mistakes in past and i should be banned indefinitely, i want to advise that all these people have warnings on their account as well so should they be reported and banned too on the basis of their old mistakes. I did not do any copyright violation and if i did that was an honest mistake. But please i would appreciate users that are commenting in this section to be respectful as if i did commit mistakes in past, i have faced blocks for those mistakes. Thankyou for your time and advice Saladin1987 22:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What more can i say ? How about starting with a sorry [272] instead of playing the victim card eh ? --DBigXrayᗙ 22:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Should we gain some consensus by starting a vote on if we should indef Saladin1987? if that is the case, I will support site ban. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 11:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

agree, with the suggestion by User:The Duke of Nonsense.--DBigXrayᗙ 23:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite siteban proposal

Multiple short duration blocks and a "6 month Topic ban" have already failed its purpose as evident by his edits above. Based on this discussion above, editors have suggested proposing an Indefinite siteban on Saladin1987 --DBigXrayᗙ 23:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support as suggested.--DBigXrayᗙ 23:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above. -Aṭlas (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support as stated prior. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 06:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support without a doubt. Rzvas (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per DBigXray. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 13:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support —AE (talk • contributions) 13:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my post above. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support because I can't resist a good pile-on. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• No brainer support Blackmane (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment All i can say is i apologize if i have done something wrong. I am sorry, as all my contributions were in good faith. I always try to source my edit and if there was some copyright material used, i sincerely wasn't aware of that. Thank you for reading Saladin1987 23:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Lorstaking says that you have logged out and used an IP to canvas for support. You haven't responded to that. If that is true, it shows that you knew that you were doing something wrong. That is why you were covering your tracks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support per DBigXray's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not log out that was an edit made from my Cell Phone or maybe my office computer, i forgot to sign in as i am normally signed in on my personal laptop. I did not hide myself as i did not pretend to be somebody else as if i was hiding behind my IP i wouldn't reply to a comment on that post with my signed in ID. I tried to get support from senior Pakistani Wikipedians as i didnt think that is wrong. If it is please enlighten me as i did not think of that as something wrong. Thankyou Saladin1987 23:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to add, i apologize if i have done something wrong, but i do have some reservations on the comments made on this page.

• First of all, it is said that i misrepresented a source on Chanakya that he was born in " Takshashila(Present-day Taxila, Pakistan)" but if you look at my edit, it was well sourced according to Buddhist tradition and even now the article mentions that on several places and is sourced correctly.
• Secondly, it is mentioned that my edits were reverted on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and i tried to gain help from senior wikipedians with my IP. I did not intentionally comment with my IP, but rather i forgot to sign in on my Cell Phone/office computer while adding a comment. As you can also see that i replied back with my ID under the same area.
• Third, i also want to mention, that i did not revert back any articles to my version once they were reverted by other contributors.
• Fourthly, any copyright violation if i have done was seriously an honest mistake. I have already mentioned before, that i did not have any knowledge of that and i apologize for that.
• Finally, If i did some mistakes in past, i have already been punished for them.

I once again apologize for any mistake that i have done while contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you for reading Saladin1987 00:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

OberRanks and fabricated sources

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.

---

OberRanks (talk · contribs), formerly Husnock (talk · contribs), has a long and troubled history of questionable image uploads, poor sourcing, sockpuppeting and WP:OR. Back in April I blocked him indefinitely [273] for what I thought were the latest two in a series of copyvio uploads. This block was lifted (unilaterally and without consultation) by admin DGG (talk · contribs) a few weeks later ([274][275]). At that time I was vaguely aware that OberRanks had also repeatedly faced complaints over article sources that he had apparently falsified (see here, here, here).

Given the clash with DGG, I am not willing to take renewed admin action against OberRanks myself, but I have in the meantime taken some time investigating his use of sources, and found that the issues known at the time were only the tip of the iceberg. I am now confident that the large majority of offline references added by OberRanks, perhaps all of them, have been fabricated. This goes both for his image descriptions and for article references, before and after the latest block.

Many of the references are difficult to check, because they are obscure offline publications that are unavailable in most libraries or online, or even unpublished alleged archival holdings. But among those items that I was able to check, not a single one was correct. The sources either don't exist at all, or do not say what OberRanks claims they say. These cases are too frequent and too systematic to be explainable as mere sloppiness or slips of memory. In several cases, he has used the fake sources in order to support the insertion of contentious material which he knew would be challenged and removed if not sourced properly. The only viable explanation is that OberRanks has been faking his references deliberately and habitually, throughout his editing career of more than 10 years.

The evidence (which is, by necessity, too long to post here) is at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/OberRanks.

Given the number of cases, the persistence of the behaviour and the history of prior warnings and deletions, I don't see how anything other than an indefinite site ban is an appropriate response here. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I obviously judged wrong back in April. I apologize to Dr. F for not looking into his objections atthe time more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I cross-checked a few of the listed problems at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/OberRanks and they appear persuasive. I'm good with a site ban here. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban, no question. Most of the examples at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/OberRanks use offline sources which I can't check, but I've checked the handful of online ones and FPaS's analysis is correct. FPaS's analysis of the offline sources is persuasive too, and I've no doubt of FPaS's honesty and ability to review such things accurately. That was excellent research, FPaS, thank you. I also checked a few of the suspect images, which are indeed obvious copvios (with downright lies in their descriptions). Sadly, we have a chronic serial copyright violator and liar here, and we need to show him the door. And it looks like we have a big potential cleanup job here too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  Looking back at OberRanks' talk page from earlier this year after the earlier copyvio block, I'm amazed that anyone believed a word of the obvious tortuous lies he came out with. In one case he was caught bang to rights over a copyvio and blatantly lying to support it, and he got away with "I would say delete that photo, and in a few months I can provide OTRS information in an undelete discussion". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  I'll just add that I guess we need to delete all of his file uploads too, unless there are any obvious PD ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Terminate with extreme prejudice. The question now is how to organize the cleanup. In most cases I suspect we should "simply" delete his contributions (simply in quotes because it's not really so simple) but if questions come up I have access to almost any English-language source. EEng 14:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  I hate to be the language police, but - even as a joke, and even when someone's behavior is bad enough to consider a site ban, it would still be better not to make casual allusions to violence like this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, for crying out loud. Now, when you say "police", is that a legal threat? Because you really shouldn't be joking about that. EEng 05:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I am extremely disappointed to hear this news and have completed inspection of all articles on this list. I found an egregious violation on Adolf Eichmann, where he added content sourced to a journal article by Baade. The source article contains nothing of the sort and I have removed it. I've always wondered about the material he added to Amon Goeth but I've never been able to prove anything. I've now removed it presumptively, as well as unsourced service records on a couple of other Nazi biographies and a largeish section on Heydrich. I feel kinda sick, who knows what other damage he has done. I have to regrettably support a site ban. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• This tool might be useful for organizing the clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban - FPS's evidence is voluminous and persuasive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I also wanted to comment, echoing Drmies, that misbehavior of this sort is by far the worst possible thing that can happen to us, because it eats away at whatever reputation for accuracy we have, and gives ammunition to those who see us as nothing but crowd-sourced nonsense. Putting false information into articles and supporting it with fake sources is infinitely worse a crime against Wikipedia than sockpuppetry, incivility, edit warring or any of the other things that people get so exercised about. We need to deal with situations such as this quickly and decisively, so we can get on about the work of deleting the offending material. In fact, I would suggest an IAR indef-block while this discussion is ongoing, to be converted to a site ban when it's closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I considered an indef block yesterday evening too, but for the same reason as Drmies below (that OberRanks is not currently active), I decided there's no real gain. And this is snowing hard enough that we won't be waiting long, I'm sure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken, Diannaa, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and Boing! said Zebedee: I think it gets even worse:
  • Curtis LeMay: More OR (citing NARA records).
  • Herbert Kappler: As above ([276][277])
  • The Brady Bunch: Suspected non-existentsource ([278])
  • Dungeon Keeper: Source only partially supports cited content ([279])
  • Military Personnel Records Center: Expanding content sourced to a website that doesn't support said content.
  • Way Out Here (song): Sources do not support cited content ([280])
  • Organization of the National Archives and Records Administration: Citing a non-existent source ([281])
  • National Archives at College Park: Another suspected non-existent source ([282]) GAB^gab 16:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Making one or two mistakes, being told about them, and learning from that isn't an issue. But to continue to do this, in what seems a deliberate act to falsify information in articles, for many years is not acceptable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• I've informed the Military History project, as many of the articles affected fall within the project's scope.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban. This is really the crime of crimes. I was tempted to go ahead and block the user already, but given their recent inactivity there is nothing they are actively disrupting right now, so waiting for the outcome of this ban discussion is not problematic. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment It certainly looks as if a site ban is in order here, but shouldn't we wait to hear from DGG first? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see why we would need to. The fact situation upon which DGG based his unblock is different from the fact situation which is before us now, so, while DGG's opinion is, of course, good to have, I see no reason why a site ban would be dependent on waiitng for it.

Well, BMK, perhaps because it would be both polite and prudent to do so, and because after eleven years waiting that half-hour or so is not really going to change anything? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban – He wasted enough of my time at Mail buoy. Now that I know he's done this many times before, I think it's time to put a stop to this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support Normally I would counsel hearing from the other party before going for any !vote but this is beyond the pale. Not only copyright violations but blatant fabrication of material using difficult to find sources is almost Essjay level of deception. Blackmane (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban - Alas, I am unable to provide my rationale without violating NPA. Swarm ♠ 23:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Indefinite site ban, no question. And this is the guy who put the following on his page back on 7 April 2007 -- "I... will do my best to adhere to WP:NOR when adding material to this encyclopedia." Treachery personified.Moriori (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban This is beyond the pale. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock Remedy #3: Looks like this has been a problem well over 10 years. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban - I also spot-checked a few, where the source was available online or through Google Books, and while I know nothing about the subject area, I agree with the conclusion that these are misrepresented or fabricated citations. Doing that in a systematic way over such a long period is really not something we can accept. All the other stuff that regularly pops up on this page - he was mean to me, she called me names, he protected the wrong version, she violated the WP:ALLCAPS policy, blah blah - is small potatoes in comparison. Many of those examples are so specific, and about such small details, that it's hard to imagine what the point of it all is - if there's a POV or a discernible goal here, it's beyond my knowledge of the topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban This long pattern of falsification cannot possibly be tolerated, and I offer my sincere thanks to Future Perfect at Sunrise for doing the hard work to document the seriousness of the problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I concur, and I should have said so earlier. Future Perfect at Sunrise, you've done a great service for us all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support ban. This is likely to be unanimous. Why would someone who describes himself as a "historian" who "works for the US Federal Government", "is a lieutenant commander in the United States Navy", "has a Bachelor of Arts degree in History", "has a Masters of Public Policy Administration degree", etc, deliberately compromise the integrity of the project in which he has invested "14 years, 4 months and 7 days" of his life? Perhaps the answer may lie on his user page which contains a userbox with this revealing and now, unfortunate, text: "Everything on Wikipedia is for fun. Assume that everything you write will be made fun of, heavily edited, and eventually deleted. Take nothing personally and remember that this is just the internet and not the real world. If you want your work taken seriously, publish it professionally and do not post it here."    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban more than enough rope has been given here. MarnetteD|Talk 03:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• The last thing we need on Wikipedia is an editor who makes up sources. In addition to a permanent block, we need to be vigilant about socks since this is exactly the type of editor who is likely to come back under a different name to have more fun at our expense. If the associated IP is a permanent one, it should be blocked too. Zero^talk 03:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. There is nothing worse for Wikipedia than fabricated, inaccurate, or falsified sources/citations. In my mind it is worse than all other possible infractions combined. Softlavender (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support and I sympathize with the editors who are dealing with the tedious cleanup, thanks for that. —PaleoNeonate – 04:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Ban this liar. His claims on his user page are probably as false as his sources. Meaning this is a case of stolen valor as well. oknazevad (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban: Falsification of sources is highly disruptive to the project. Persistent WP:CIR issues with no apparent learning curve suggest that the site ban is an appropriate remedy at this time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support I spot checked three source examples, and looked at three of the ribbon images, came to the same conclusion as FPaS. Falsification of sources is one of the most egregious betrayals of Wikipedia any editor can commit. Just ban him already. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess there's no harm in his having the full 24-hour rumination. But he won't ever edit again. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef site ban- this user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, just sabotage it. Reyk _YO! 08:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Ach, checking the link provided above by User:Compassionate727, I see that OberRanks' previous account, User:Husnock, used to be an admin but was desysopped for (among other things) sharing the account with a third party, socking - and copyright violation and original research. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock - just read the "Findings of fact" and weep. We missed a lot of signs on this one over a long period. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#OberRanks and dubious image uploads, from 2011, is also instructive. Unfortunately it was shrugged off without further action back then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh dear, our collective incompetence is looking worse by the minute - and I want to thank you again for sticking with this and not just giving up in exasperation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban, Issues from 2011? Pah! I see your 2011 and give you this about the user's copyright malfeasances from 2007 (deleted link so admins only, but MFDs about it making it clear what it's about are here and here). I knew the name rang a bell. Fish+Karate 09:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site-ban, and support a co-ordinated clean-up organised along the lines of a CCI, using the modified Contribution Surveyor that Diannaa has linked to above. All content added by this editor should be presumptively removed unless immediately and easily verifiable as accurate and appropriate. And yes, kudos and thanks to FPAS. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support with thanks to Future Perfect for the agonizingly hard work. Cases like this are rare (WP:Jagged 85 cleanup is the only comparable case I know of) but faking stuff is the most destructive and corrosive action that can be taken. Johnuniq (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Fut. Perf.'s proposal, with gratitude for the man hours. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Cleanup

Thanks to everybody who responded and helped to bring this to such a quick, decisive conclusion. Maybe it's now time to start planning for the cleanup effort several of you have hinted at. Somebody suggested using my existing evidence page as a starting point for a central hub to coordinate it. Should it be set up similarly to a WP:CCI page, using that helpful tool Diannaa suggested yesterday? Note that there are also images over at Commons, both under OberRanks' and Husnock's name, and there may still be old article material from the Husnock account, and Husnock images on this (deleted) user subpage from the time of the last cleanup effort from 2007. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, something along those lines sounds good - I'll dip in and help with what time I have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Please only ask if it's a case where outright presumptive deletion would be problematic, but as mentioned before if it's in here [283] I can check it. EEng 19:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Since I already made a couple of easy deletions and noted them on your page, I obviously think this is the way to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

List of goldfish varieties

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.

---

And here's another one. ZeZeNapsid002 (talk · contribs) is convinced a. they don't need to source their edits, b. they are capable of correcting others' grammatical errors (even when there are none there), c. well I don't know. They have a habit of edit warring too, and have been blocked before, and I'd go into greater length but I'm watching Friends reruns. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

everyone knows that goldfish fanciers control the illuminati ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) These edits[284] [285] [286] are not encouraging. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC) updated 02:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

And they just tried to delete this ANI case[287]. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I blocked them for a week. I would not oppose an indef. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by IP 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.

---

202.141.210.102 recently make an edit to Michael Greger with the edit summary "Leave as is. Have balanced it to be fair. Do not remove this anymore! I will engage lawyers if you continue to reverse my changes." I am pretty sure this is considered a legal threat. Greyjoy ^talk 05:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

They're also obvious block evasion of Special:Contributions/119.17.33.134 Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Revoke TPA

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.

---

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

This user was was blocked by Alex Shih as a LTA sock and is abusing his talk page. Can somebody revoke his TPA ? Kpgjhpjm 08:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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

German year drafts?

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 noticed a lot of Year in Germany drafts recently. That's fine, but what's weird is each one is created by a different brand-new user: [288][289][290][291][292]. Is somebody generating throw-away accounts for each new article? Or is this some big class project at a school? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

RoySmith - They seem okay. I'd be much more concerned if these creations were within only minutes or even seconds of one another, but there's at least a few hours between creations, so it's being done by humans and not by bots. So far, I don't smell anything that's sending off any alarm bells in my head. It could be a collaboration or a class... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems a checkuser disagrees. Natureium (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeahhhhh I figured they were from the same place, but I try to give the benefit of the doubt wherever possible... even though I probably do so too much... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• This is Europefan (talk · contribs · count). If this arises again, admins can look at the history of the drafts/articles and readily see what is going on. Many of these have been G5ed multipled times.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Phmoreno has made a legal threat here and has refused to retract it Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they have taken it down now. PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't spot that before filing this Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I applied an NLT block after seeing the diffs involved - especially their refusal, but removed the block after seeing that it had been taken down. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, just because I saw this and I'm grumpy, I still object to our automatic use of blocks when someone violates (or seems to maybe violate) WP:NLT. We warn and discuss and explain for everything else, including vandalism, but this is somehow so deeply horrible we have to block immediately with no warning. Makes no sense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • He was warned. The only reason I brought this to WP:ANI is because he was given sufficient warning and tried to play it off as "inform someone about what was said about them." Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - Sorry this upset you. I felt that he was given a fair chance when asked to take it down, and he refused. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not you, it's all of us. if you hadn't blocked, someone else would have. We should be focusing on preventing people from continuing to make legal or pseudo-legal threats, not forcing them to recant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NLT even says "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt. Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action." RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore - Indeed. In this case there was no doubt that it was a threat. It was pretty clear... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Right, and that's why they warned Phmoreno before reporting them here. I am inclined to contact the WSJ legal department about such comments is not terribly close to ambiguous. As Galobtter pointed out, would you contact a legal department for funsies?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I was highlighting Floq's overall comment above. In this case, it was pretty darn clear as a threat, just highlighting Floq's initial comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

In Floqtopia, what would have happened is:

• Phmoreno makes a pseudo-legal threat (I would still dispute this was actually a clear legal threat, but only want to argue the main point, so for the sake of argument I'll concede this)
• Someone warns him about our NLT policy, not in a "withdraw it now" demanding tone, but in an explanatory tone.
• Phmoreno says "but it wasn't a threat"
• Instead of blocking at this stage (which is what happened), We explain how (some) people interpret it as a threat, make sure he knows if he does it again he might be blocked, and (in double plus Floqtopia) explain *why* it's a policy
• He either does it again, and gets blocked, or withdraws it and doesn't get blocked, or he simply doesn't do it again and doesn't get blocked.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with "he simply doesn't do it again and doesn't get blocked", as I explain below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

As they have removed it nothing to see. But it was not ambiguous, it was a clear threat to report a user to a legal department.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'll just point out that the purpose of an NLT block is not simply to prevent further legal threats, it's because people are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while such threats are outstanding. I do agree that we should be sure it really is a legal threat (I think it was in this case) and we should give people a proper explanation and sufficient time to withdraw the threat. But if they do not withdraw it when given the chance, they absolutely should be blocked, yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Even when the target of the "legal threat" says "LOL"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • As with everything here, it depends on individual cases and circumstances - my point is a general one, based on the need to end the chilling effect of an existing legal threat. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Just to add that the chilling effect of a legal threat can affect more than just the person immediately targeted, and allowing someone to continue editing while it is still in effect sends the wrong message. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is as hyberbolisitc as the threat, no one took the threat seriously, they took it as the childish stamping of feet it was. That does not alter the fact it was a clearly worded (if I think very insincere) legal threat, one that was a tantrum aimed at mild intimidation.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If you mean the reply in the thread I took that to be "Yes, go ahead, like hell you will!".Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned this is the second time we have a bit of a flare up because Oshwah has been too hasty to indefinitely block a longstanding editor, and has then had to back down and apologise. Oshwah, seriously, stick this on your user page, and unless the user you want to block is doing something very obviously wrong (like defacing an article with racial or sexual slurs), read it, count to ten, and only if you can answer all of it as "yes, they absolutely have to be blocked", then hit the button. For what it's worth, I take WP:NLT to mean you cannot edit Wikipedia while you have a legal case against the Wikimedia Foundation; telling the Wall Street Journal they may want to take action against potentially defamatory comments on Wikipedia is not directly what I see the policy as covering. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I'd say that calling the WSJ lawyers definitely falls under a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process. Threatening to sic lawyers on someone has an unacceptable chilling effect, regardless of who's actually bringing the case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

He didn't actually say he'd done it though - he said he thought about doing it, and for all we know, it could be just a flare up of anger and over-reacting, in the same way that Trump wanted to lock up Clinton in a dark cell and throw away the key (and then didn't). Until we actually know he is directly involved in legal action against the WMF via the WSJ, it's not blockable in my opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Then that's not a legal threat, it's legal action, and that's definitely not what the policy says. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No, but it was worded as a threat (and no he did not say he thought about it, he said he was thinking about it (present tense) and that (in effect) if you want to avoid it withdraw the statement, that is using threat of possible legal action to bully a users). It was not (i agree) blockable, but it did need a warning.Slatersteven (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with making threats toward the WMF. If Sarek's highlight above would have carried on to the end it would have said a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors. No definite legal action needs to be confirmed if the chilling effect of a legal threat is in play. Instead of threatening to contact legal dept., he should have contacted an admin or posted to a noticeboard.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The original post [293] was definitely a legal threat; it has since been retracted. Regarding the procedural "do we block for NLT", I think that perhaps a 24-hour discussion/cooldown period prior to the block needs to be the standard (if not the official policy) here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:CheekyboyOli

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.

---

CheekyboyOli (talk · contribs) seems to be engaging in disruptive editing on articles regarding pop songs/albums/artists, which mainly consists of changing genres in infoboxes. In most cases, they do not cite sources and their edits get reverted as they go against established consensus. In one case, they referred to some unspecified MOS guideline as a basis for their edit, but they didn't explain what they meant. Despite warnings on their talk page, as well as requests to engage in discussion, they behaviour continues and it seems that at no point did they try talking to other editors regarding the changes they were making. They had already been blocked for edit warring – since then it seems they did not violate the 3-revert-rule, but they still edit to change genres in articles. They have been served with a {{uw-genre4}}, but this did not stop their editing. This is the first time I'm starting a discussion on ANI—I am doing so in good faith and I hope that my understanding of what this board is for is correct. — bieχχ (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think they should be notified of this at User talk:CheekyboyOli. Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've already done so. — bieχχ (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed by Bbb23 by the looks of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

So this can be closed? — bieχχ (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive 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.

---

Disruptive editor, E380f876, at talk:Miriam Tey. Hurling insults after contentious disagreement. Sock puppet investigation currently open. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sock of Filiprino put back in its drawer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

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

U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present)

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.

---

Maybe some of you aren't as jaded as I am. Please have at it. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• DynaGirl, thank you, but you've been reverted. There's 2601:283:4100:B50:5C8:A9E0:7129:CB74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.8.22.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but they're the same person; see this--the one IP remarks on the process started by the other IP. They continue to edit war (5R now, I think) and have extended their crusade of disruption at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• FWIW, I've given 24.8.22.172 a 3RR warning.—Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• 5 albert square, thank you for the one block, but 2Sal (talk · contribs) is the same person as that IP, methinks. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It's been semi protected for 2 weeks by Alex Shih which should calm things down. Fish+Karate 08:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Beautiful War - reverts, disruptive editing, and IDHT

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.

---

Beautiful War (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor had 8 edits until today, and they started to make edits like this [294] en masse: note that the edit breaks formatting (Ref. 5), removes sourced info (2002 census results) and does not make any improvements. I reverted and started talk page discussion, which went nowhere, whereas the user continued reverting me with the edit summary "no reason given for your revert" for example, Severoonezhsk: one, two, three. Format of articles on Russian localities has been established years ago, als all these articles have the same format, which is used in thousands of articles. If the user is unhappy with the format, they should start discussion and gain consensus, but instead they insist that they improve prose and there is consensus for that [295]. I am not sure which sock it is (may be someone could recognize them), but we have both WP:NOTTHERE and WP:IDHT, and it is probably much easier to block indef than to continue explaining them the policies. Note that the reverts suddenly made them confirmed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Well this is interesting. I find a bunch of articles which have text of the form "Population: 2010 x, 2002 y, 1989 z" in the lead section. This is not a proper sentence, and obviously article text must be in the form of proper sentences. I did not imagine anyone would take issue with that. And yet Ymblanter is undoing my changes, without any attempt to explain why. They claim I broke formatting - nope, the article formatting is just fine before and after my edits. I just changed non-sentences to sentences. That someone has a problem with that makes no sense. And he's suggesting I should be blocked indefinitely for it?? The weird claims about formatting, plus a claim that I should follow policies about biographies of living persons when editing articles about Russian towns, makes me think this editor is simply not thinking straight. Beautiful War (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

"..started talk page discussion, which went nowhere.." - I think when you start talk page discussion with "Your edits do not improve the quality of articles, while removing sourced info and breaking formatting. Please stop.", you do not intend it to go anywhere. I asked several times what your problem was with proper sentences, and which formatting you thought I broke; you declined to answer. Beautiful War (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I tried to explain you some of the Wikipedia policies, but failed. I am now fully convinced that you are a sockpuppet by a blocked user. This is a typical behavior for a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You're convinced I am a sockpuppet because I rewrote non-sentences as sentences and used definite articles correctly? You did not try to explain anything. You seem to be gunning for confrontation - your first message on my talk page was absurdly hostile. Meanwhile, when you undo an edit, you are greeted with a message which says "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only. You did not explain your reason in the edit summary; you used the default message only. Beautiful War (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I went to your talk page and explained my revert of six of your edits, despite your claims that I did not. Everybody can easily check this.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Everybody can check to see that you left me aggressive and confrontational messages; if anyone can find the bit where you explain why definite articles should appear in the wrong place and full sentences should be replaced by fragments, maybe they can point it out to me. Beautiful War (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Problems with BW's edits:

• removing in-line sources (part of the template that was removed; compare the two versions, YMB's version links to source, BW's doesn't)
• in some cases, removing information
• edit warring
• pretending to not understand YMB's message even when it eventually became clear
• pretending that YMB's use of "BLP" shows YMB is wrong, when it has already been explained on BW's talk page that it was a typo for BRD - I find this type of gamesmanship particularly obnoxious
• not gaining consensus for edits that are disputed

Problems with YMB's edits:

• using rollback on edits that are not vandalism
• being a dick in their first few talk page messages
• doing a really poor job of explaining what the problem is with the edits
• edit warring
• claiming BW is a sock with no evidence

Solution:

• BW self-revert to status quo ante since someone disagrees with their edits
• BW and YMB discuss like civilized humans on an article/wikiproject talk page
• YMB provide a link to the consensus to use this format, which does kind of look odd
• YMB either provide evidence of sockpuppetry or stop accusing someone of it
• BW and YMB stop acting smug and superior

--Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with that. I do not have a link for consensus, but everybody can easily check that all pages on Russian districts and high-profile localities (urban localities and district centers) use this format, that it exists since at least 2011, in many times earlier, and that it was not introduced by me, which means de-facto consensus. If the format is to change, it has to be changed on all pages (2000+?), and not just on six pages, which obviously would require a discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Relevant MOS guidance appears to be WP:PARAGRAPH, which states that these kinds of 'disguised' tables or lists should either be rewritten to prose or converted to actual tables/lists, so BW's instinct that the information should be converted to a "proper sentence" and that they should not need a consensus to do so appear to be correct. That said, the use of a standardized template to list historical populations is the norm on Wikipedia articles; there are some other national varieties like {{US Census population}} or {{India census population}} or {{Philippine Census}}, but all of these examples are in a regular table format, just as the generic {{Historical populations}} template is. So, the primary root of the problem here actually appears to be that the standardized historical population template for Russian articles, {{Ru-census}}, is in a 'disguised list' format, which runs counter to MOS guidance. This should be repaired, but in a more nuanced way than BW was attempting. Swarm ♠ 20:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The easiest is probably to open a discussion at a relevant venue (note that Ukraine and Kazakhstan use similar format, which I introduced when I started to add population data). If there is format acceptable to everybody then we will need to amend all these articles. Until than happened I believe these six articles should be reverted to their stable state.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It would make no sense to return those articles to a deficient state. They are fixed now, and they should be left fixed. (they can be improved further of course and I hope they are). Contrary to the claim that all the Russian town articles follow the bizarre use of non-sentences in the lead section that I corrected, a two minute browse turned up Murmansk, Norilsk, Krasnoyarsk, Novosibirsk, Dikson (urban-type settlement), Omsk, all using proper sentences as they should.

Meanwhile I think that Ymblanter used this forum totally inappropriately and unnecessarily. I'm really struggling to comprehend their motivation I must say. Beautiful War (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

They are not fixed. You still removed reliably sourced info, did not repair the references (bot did it for you in two articles), and in one case (Severoonezhsk) introduced false info. Please revert as soon as possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Death threat

203.81.71.30 has threatened to kill me.[296] While I suspect that this is the work of someone who is all hat and no cattle, it is rather incivil.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment. Blocked for 72 hours, and the post removed and revdelled as purely disruptive. Alex Shih (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, so I cannot see the redacted death threat, but I do nonetheless feel compelled to ask: is 72 hours really a sufficient block for threatening to kill another editor? Or was the threat so unrealistic and childish or cartoonish that the block is, more or less, pro forma? It's not that I don't trust Alex, I do, but I'm struggling to understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging Alex Shih. There have been further statements by the IP like [...[redacted - Oshwah]...] and a post-block statement of "Instead of giving me a million chances for me to personally attack and harass others, you have honored me (disrespectfully) with a 3-day block..." Leaving this to the discretion of Alex to decide whether to increase the block duration... Lourdes 08:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out whether this is a dynamic IP (for which a 3-day block would be perfectly justified) or a static one, and I see that the IP geolocates to Myanmar. Could it be an open proxy?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I have my suspicions about that. It's worth noting that this user has used at least two other IP address in the range in the last two days - for this reason block length is probably not the thing to be addressed. With IP addresses a longer block doesn't necessarily achieve anything. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If you want to see the death threat, it is [...[redacted - Oshwah]...]. What is interesting is that someone with an IP address in Myanmar speaks very good English and is engaged in disruptive editing. Agree that this is a possible open proxy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I've redacted the external URL to the threat above - Zzuuzz has the ability to view the threat himself, and we should avoid linking external resources to content that's revDel'd on-wiki. The point of rev del'ing is to remove it from public view, and adding methods in order for it to be viewable makes keeping it redacted more difficult and it defeats the purpose :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've seen similar from Myanmar IPs recently, and according to https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/203.81.71.30 this one is a "Network sharing device or proxy server". A suitable proxy block should probably be put in place by someone who has the ability and time to work out the appropriate IP range. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but whatismyipaddress.com seems to say that about IP addresses at random. I wouldn't put too much faith in that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Per that website (addendum: per NRP, assuming we put any faith in that), there appears to be a proxy service in the range Special:Contributions/203.81.71.16/27. Editing of this person does seem restricted to that and not a /24 range of that I see.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/203.81.71.30 says it's a Proxy/VPN too, and gives it a "Suspicious" Fraud rating. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm still calling BS on this, because it is very unlikely that it is someone actually in Myanmar, unless they are on holiday there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• whatismyipaddress provides some specific definitions of what it calls a proxy, and there is nothing inherently wrong with proxies. Looking at the range, and the edits to Myanmar-related topics, I'd advise a little caution before throwing down an all-encompassing range block, because it will hit some collateral. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Yep, but if someone can identify the range and check what's coming from it, we might get a better idea. And there's the ipqualityscore.com result too, added above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee:I've looked at the IP, and I'm not seeing any actual technical evidence of a proxy operating at this time on that IP. As NinjaRobotPirate mentions above, a lot of those "proxy checking" websites (IPQS, Whatsmyip, iphub, getipintel, etc) should probably be taken with a grain of salt. They are useful for indicating something that needs to be checked more thoroughly, but I'm not sure I would use them as sole evidence. Myanma Posts and Telecommunications indicates that the company also provides mobile service, and anyone that's ever dealt with a vandal on a mobile range knows that they can jump around a lot - and behave like someone behind a proxy. My suspicion is that this is what we are encountering here. SQL^{Query me!} 05:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Oshwah: Since you redacted the death threat (or its remnants rather), just pointing out that the disparaging insult against the black community, which is still there in the edit history. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 11:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

QEDK - That wasn't me that removed that specific attack, and I think they left the diff URL there for others to review it for this discussion. Nonetheless, I went ahead and redacted the rest. If any admin believes that I should not have done this or if I should put the diff URL back as it was, please let me know and I will do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware ofcourse, I was simply stating there was another contentious thing to censor, which you either didn't notice or didn't want to revdel, so I pointed it out. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, no worries. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Great Famine (Ireland)

Independent comments are requested at User talk:Boundarylayer#The Chancer "User:DrKay", wanting to engage in "warring" specifically on the question of whether the diffs linked in that discussion are reverts or not. DrKay (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

They are not reverts. You added 'unreliable source' and similar tags. Boundarylayer removed the tags while providing the requested better source (with no comment on the merit of that source), which must count as a legitimate edit. After all, he was providing that which you requested. If he had removed the tags without adding a source, that would be a revert. TheVicarsCat (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No comment on whether the diffs are reverts or not, but I've alerted Boundarylayer to the DS around The Troubles since they haven't been alerted before Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I note that BoundaryLayer, who already has one indefinite topic ban in place (on the subject of abortion), is now accusing another editor of being a "chancer" and a "hypocrite". They have already been blocked twice in the last year for personal attacks. I would suggest that this is sailing very close to another sanction. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, DrKay presenting themselves as simply interested in the minutia of if these are reverts on the admin noticeboard. That seems proportionate. Wait, what is going on? Correct me if I'm wrong but again, wouldn't my word on it, or indeed the WP:CIVIL thing to do here be, to get a 3rd opinion or request for comment over something trivial like this? Why are you so intent on increasingly making it obvious that this wasn't just a misunderstanding on your behalf? As does anyone here really buy this anymore, all this over some silly overlooked "page-needed-tags", you should receive an edit-warring-accusation then find yourself on the admin noticeboard?

If anyone wants to see what the "Dr's" actual motivations are, much like the editors engaged in that abortion ban, then you really need look no further than this revealing quote the "Dr" made. "unlike you I don't edit-war to force my view on this article" From that quote, it is very clear User:DrKay is both levelling personal attacks and has an WP:AXE to grind over some content I've added, though rather than being civil and coming out straight about what that is. They have engaged in all sorts of this motivated wiki-lawyering and veiled nit-picking, in a chancer effort to suggest there is a "war", or get a ban in place etc. As let's drop the pretense, DrKay, no one goes tossing edit-warring labels and now starting Admin noticeboard proceedings...all this, over some overlooked page-needed-tags. Seems incredulous right, really strange right? Though not so strange when your realize, DrKay had days ago, written - "...you are a disruptive user..." and ever since has been desparately attempting to try to make something stick, to fit this their prejudiced view.

Despite being asked to elaborate, User:DrKay has not responded on precisely what "forcing" I'm allegedly doing on the article, it is presumedly something larger than "page-needed-tags" getting lost. So could it be, that what we are actually dealing with here, is an editor with a seething disagreement with content hidden behind this, the veneer of just being a diligent wiki-editor, engaged in what is fast becoming, the most transparent ulterior-motivatation-for-nitpicking, in the history of mankind?

Though seen as we're here, I would like to ask some admins what is the plan to prevent the rise of these kangaroo proceedings and indeed the roving gangs of editors gaming the system and attempting to generate bans for those they (closet) disagree with. As what makes me sail right past [User:Black Kite]] and others and only shake my head, on my way past. Is how we all know that this is happening. It's established practice now. We all hear about it, the admins probably see it as an everyday occurence at this stage.

It starts with a round of Mischaracterization-spin-the-wheel and then mangled, context-void cherry-picking quotes being presented to officialdom, all part of nippy-heels WP:HOUNDING, that by hook-or-by-crook will find its way to escalate to admin-noticeboards. It's all done by sanction-happy editors just because they WP:DONTLIKE and disagree with others. Would I be wrong, that this is not an M.O. established on wikipedia now? One of veiled maneuverings? One really does wonder if those type of editors, are even aware of the articles, the Pot calling the kettle black and Hypocrites? With that then and it being now, really a genuine question User:Black Kite, not as you have falsely attempted to mischaracterize as "accusations" or a "personal attack". Though thanks for neatly giving us an example of the very mischaracterization behavior, I'm talking about. The increasingly laughable opportunism of it.

When, in reality and this is it, the only actual WP:PERSONALATTACKs are the loaded accusations, that none of you, are to bring them to task over. Or are even considering to be grossly inappropriate. Such as the actual accusations they've made - "unlike you I don't edit-war to force my view on this article" & days ago "...you are a disruptive user...". How close to a sanction do sentences like that sail User_talk:Black Kite. Who is "personally attacking" who here and being "disingenuous"?

I'm here to collaborate and improve and make articles. You don't need to take my word for it, just take a look at the article and you'll see that with the quality of references I've added and attempts to make the lede more reflective of the article. I've no interest in the egos here. As I really do not appreciate an editor who is actually the disruptive user, fabricating notions of "edit-warring", starting talk-pages without notifying involved editors, claiming they pointed things out(to an empty room), summoning me to the admin notice board, vague threats about sanctions being made here now. All of this...all of it they claim over some dropped page-needed-tags when updating an article...that's right folks, unbelievable isn't it? It's completely in breach of WP:CIVIL and the opportunism that it reflects, should begin to be recognized and sanctioned. Some editors are clearly intent on making this place akin to soviet-esque systems of kangaroo courts and conducting purges or bans to control content, and it needs to end.

Boundarylayer (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've made my point rather well, if a little verbosely. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

By "view", I refer to the view that self-published sources are acceptable in a heavily contentious topic area. DrKay (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What is up with this page?

Could someone check why an assortment of IPs are adding weird stuff and edit warring at this IP talk page? I'm sensing it may be an LTA or similar. Not notifying anyone since there's many IPs. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It's an LTA (or NTA cause it's definitely new?) See here and my contribs in user_talk between 13:14 and 13:23 today. The content they are adding roughly translates to "suck a horse dick" and it appears to be proxy usage too... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The IPs are all mobile ISPs with very large ranges. I managed to block one range that won't have any collateral damage, but I won't be able to say the same thing about the others I've looked at so far... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh goodie. Thanks for looking into it. Home Lander (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Home Lander - You're welcome! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: A good portion of these are /16 blocked as NOP on several other projects. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Chrissymad - Definitely not surprising to hear; I've blocked about 3 of them so far. I still have more to look into but I should be done soon. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, here's what I blocked:

114.5.0.0/16

60.50.0.0/16

120.188.0.0/16

36.84.0.0/16

114.4.82.83

That was as best as I could get without too much collateral damage and while verifying if these are open proxies. If I need to look into more ranges or if something doesn't look right, let me know and I'll take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Miriam Tey de Salvador

Dear Administrators, I would like to bring your attention to the following talk page [[297]] of the entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Tey_de_Salvador. I am not so much experienced in wikipedia and therefore I would like to have your advice. I was reading about the wikipedia policy about biographies of living people [[298]]. It is not completely clear to me which are the limits for a reliable source WP:BLPRS and whats is relevant infomartion about a living person who is not just a famous person but addtionally a professional in some field. Is in this case relevant an affair of this person? There are sources about this affair but how can you proof it and be sure that the sources are reliable or are there really separate sources or the same? there is even a sources in the article about a marriage after this affair. Could you please me tell me if the sources indicated in the article are relevant or it is just tabloid journalism? Is it relevant if this person, who is known for other things (Editor, etc.), had an affair with someone else? .Is relevant who are the supporters of an organisation CLAC she founded? Thanks for your help, --Manlorsen (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You are edit warring. Stop. --Tarage (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Like was stated above, Manlorsen, you seem to be engaging in edit warring, which is a swift path to a block. It's crucial that you slow down and stop editing the page for now. Instead, continue the discussions you are having on the talk page and reach consensus before implementing controversial or challenged content. Taking a break from the page for a few days may also help.

From what you said above, this seems to be a content dispute, in which case you should seek dispute resolution if necessary. This page is for discussing the behavioral problems of other editors, including long-term abuse cases. This is not the place for content disputes to be worked out, which is what talk pages and noticeboards are for. As is said in the dispute resolution documentation linked above, you can seek a third opinion or even initiate a request for comment (RfC) as a last resort, which might help resolve the content dispute. Please keep in mind that the problem here may be your behavior and position, so be sure to consider whether that is the case. Moreover, if it seems consensus is not on your side, it may be best to just accept that and drop it for now. Consensus can change, after all. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC); edited to add {{Non-admin comment}} at 00:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This shouldn't be closed out of hand; there are certainly language issues here as well as WP:BLP issues, and this is an acceptable forum to resolve the situation (though a move to WP:BLPN may be necessary if there isn't a quick fix, such as a block, needed). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Manlorsen's contributions at Miriam Tey de Salvador and Societat Civil Catalana have been somewhat disruptive, and they have not edited any other pages substantially. They are very close to a block. Perhaps a Spanish-speaking admin could give them a final warning? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The BLP issue is whether a statement that Miquel Alzueta and Miriam Tey de Salvador were in a relationship should be in the article. There's extensive discussion of that on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Eyes needed on articles about alcohol consumption

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 look over the edits of Sbelknap (talk · contribs); he's got a particular personal vendetta against alcohol consumption and has been removing any statement from articles about alcohol and alcoholic beverages that do not conform to his beliefs; he shows no regard for WP:MEDRS, and is cherrypicking sources based only on those sources that reflect his personal beliefs, and removing those that do not. He calls material "deprecated" without providing any rationale why, and then just removes it. He calls sources like JAMA and the American Heart Association "low quality sources". See here where he removes a JAMA reference, and here where he dumps a bunch of sources that he doesn't think are "recent" enough merely because they contradict his narrative. Can someone else please review his editing and take corrective measures as needed; I want to avoid an edit war here. The user has been topic-banned previously from other medical topics for similar editing (see his talk page for notices of that topic ban); and I'm not wondering if he's now transferring the same behavior to other medical fields. Perhaps an expansion of his topic ban to cover all medical-related topics is in order. User has been notified. --Jayron32 11:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Linking the topic ban discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Blatant disregard for a topic ban? Only one answer... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the topic of alcohol consumption was not covered by the details of his prior topic ban; but what is evident is that he's engaging in similar behaviors (using the cherrypicking of sources to enforce a particular viewpoint) in a new area. --Jayron32 12:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Jayron, apologies, I misread the TB as saying "health" (in general) rather than specifically, "sexual health". Although, of course, there's always the "broadly construed" appendage; and as far as appendages go, alcohol consumption has been known to affect sexual "health"  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not a violation of their existing topic ban, but it is pretty much the exact behaviour that got them topic banned applied to an adjacent (but not overlapping) topic. I see basically three options here:

1. extending the topic ban to all medical content.
2. a sanction targetted at enforcing proper use of sources and proper talk page behaviour, regardless of the topic area (I'm sure this has been done before, but I don't recall the details).
3. both of the above.

I'm leaning towards options 2 or 3. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I don't know how much weight my input has, but I'm also inclined to agree with a sanction and topic ban. The editor has already shown that they won't learn from his previous topic ban on other similar topics with his belligerent editing. Sbelknap clearly really cares, but the lack of ability to rein things in and have productive discussions about their changes is really concerning for me. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 12:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

An escalation of the behaviour they were topic banned for into areas not covered by the topic ban calls for blocking, in my opinion. But I endorse option 1 at minimum. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

cymru.lass - Your input in a discussion has the same exact weight and significance as everyone else. Administrators do not have any additional "status", "authority", or "rank" than non-admins. The only thing that's different between us is that I have a few extra buttons - that's it. We're trusted to perform actions that aren't given out to everyone and nothing else is different outside of that. I'm no more important of a user than you are (if anything, I'm less important than you, as my job is to help and serve you) :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, some editors are more equal than others. EEng 21:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If they don't have additional or higher "rank" then perhaps there shouldn't be references to the "promotion" of "editors" to "administrators". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• We tried to tailor the TBAN narrowly to give this person, who is an expert in the real world and wants to contribute to WP, the opportunity to learn with the hope that they could become better oriented to the mission and the P&G through which we realize it. The behavior described here is a huge bummer; this person could have been so, so helpful to us. He has now demonstrated that he is unwilling or unable to set aside his convictions as an expert as well as his real world advocacy when he works here, and that makes him a bad fit here. I support extending the TBAN to all health topics (not just "medicine") Damn. I've posted a notice of this discussion at WT:MED to get others' input from there. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)(sorry I want to think about this more Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC))
  • concur w/ Jytdog, (support extending the TBAN to all health topics (not just "medicine") )based on rationale above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That's my motivation suggesting option 2 - making it clear that it is the behaviour not the topic that is the problematic thing. Option three is the same but a time-out from medical topics while they are learning and anticipate that the topic ban would be relaxed first. It would require someone far better at wordsmithing than me to craft though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I hear that. However I believe that the finasteride thing (the subject of his initial ban) is important to him in the RW. If losing his ability to edit that topic was not a sufficient wake up call, I have no basis for hoping that anything else will be. Hence my recommendation. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC))
• Support extension of TBAN to all biomedical topics. Reviewing the recent edits, such as at Cider there was clearly an attempt to crowbar undue content in about the effects of alcohol. What is worse, this is done using the recent Lancet metastudy in the same kind of vague and scary way that has been done lazily in the media, by saying just that alcohol consumption "increases the risk of all-cause mortality" (see [299]). Wikipedia should be so much better than this, and we expect much higher standards from medical editors. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I had a look at (only) his edit to Cider, and what I saw didn't line up with the description at the top of this section. It's probably undue – I'd probably have written two sentences that did little more than Wikipedia:Build the web to the relevant pages on the Health effects of alcohol – but he accurately presented both the current mainstream POV that zero alcoholic drinks per life is best for longevity overall, and explicitly presented the previous mainstream POV by saying that some prior studies found that one drink per day was better than a current consumption of zero per day in certain categories. Where we could do better in presenting this research would be to add that the difference between "zero per life" and "one drink, but not every day" seems to be pretty minimal.
    For those who don't follow this kind of stuff, while the Lancet article has made a big splash in the media recently, the idea that alcohol is a net negative is not really a new idea. This change in the medical establishment's POV has been visible on the horizon for a number of years now. I have no doubt that it's annoying to the industry (I happen to know a small cider maker) and feels personally threatening to some drinkers, but this barely counts as "news" if you've been following the literature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• See also here. Alcohol is rapidly becoming the new tobacco. The attitude toward alcohol is, despite the latest Lancet article, still quite similar to that of tobacco in the 19th century. As pointed out here: "In the mid- to late-19th century, doctors determined that lip and tongue cancer rates were higher among smokers of pipes and cigars. Despite this link, major medical journals mocked those who opposed smoking. The Lancet, the leading journal of the time and still one of the most important medical journals in the world, wrote in 1879, “We have no sympathy with prejudices against … tobacco, used under proper restriction as to the time and amount of the consumption. ... A cigar when the mood and the circumstances are propitious [is] not only to be tolerated, but approved.” Moderation, not abstinence, was the order of the day." It's then no surprise that the disparity between where the evidence is leading to and the general attitude (that to some degree will end up in Wikipedia, as there is more to alcohol than the health aspects of it and Wikipedia must cover the entire topic) will attract activists who feel strongly about the health aspects. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure and there's no doubt alcohol, especially in quantity, isn't good for you. The problem is the "activist" angle. There's no doubt driving a car risks a crash which can kill/maim you. We don't put that information in every article about every brand of car. Adding a socking great section to Cider and Whisky and so on is the problem. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No one is disputing the addition of relevant information from the Lancet article to proper context within the proper Wikipedia article. What is the behavioral issue here is the existence of that one article to justify sanitizing all other valid WP:MEDRS sources from every article if the results of those studies contradict the Lancet report. --Jayron32 17:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the history here, but what strikes me about this complaint is that I don't see any attempt at either Talk:Long-term effects of alcohol consumption or User talk:Sbelknap to discuss this with Sbelknap. In fact, I see the opposite; Sbelknap opened a discussion at the article talk page explaining why he made those edits, and no one objected or suggested he was doing the wrong thing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Will give this a little more time, but I'm seeing a clear consensus to extend the TBAN to cover all health and medical topics, as well as for an editing restriction requiring proper sourcing and proper talk page conduct. Swarm ♠ 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry again for my too-quick initial reaction. So the OP is unfortunately misleading. In the first diff cited, Sbelknap removed PMID 9863785 (Lancet primary source from 1998) and PMID 11308432 (JAMA primary source from 2001) and this press release. Similarly, in the second diff cited Sbelknap removed a small pile of old primary sources. These edits were perfectly appropriate. Those are unambiguously "low quality sources" per MEDRS. I and other experienced medical editors make edits like that every day. User:Jayron32, those parts of your OP are wrong and you should strike them. And yes, this should have been discussed before posting here.

What is more problematic, is a) the attention only to the evidence, and b) overplaying what the paper describing the evidence says. On a), when I say "only" evidence, we are mindful of what clinical guidelines and public health recommendations say, as well as what the most recent evidence is. Medical practice and recommendations are always judgement + available evidence. On b), the overplaying is apparent in the block of text that Sbelnap has been adding to several articles, like here and diffs above. All of the studies about long term drinking are observational, and can show correlations and risk, but not cause and effect. This is ironically exactly where an expert like Sbelknap could be so, so helpful but instead we have a very flat, un-naunced advocacy-driven edit. This is very close to the kind of behavior that became problematic at sexual health stuff. I am discussing with Sbelknap via email, after he reached out to me, which I appreciate. That's all I have to say for now. Again my apologies for my too-hasty initial response. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• fwiw its worth Sbelknap and i have agreed (I believe) on more nuanced content, something like this as opposed to the diffs linked above. I think Sbelknap understands that they rang alarm bells here and will be more careful in the future. I think no action is needed at this time. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• As Jytdog says right above, edits cited in OP are fine (not only fine, but improved the article) and as Kendall-K1 mentions, Sbelknap engaged in Talk page as he made those editing with perfect explanation on why they were made. This ANI post should be closed without action since it should never have been opened. --Treetear (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• If Sbelknap (talk · contribs) is not doing the things that were previously a problem, would it be appropriate to lift the previous topic bans? Count Iblis mentioned that, due to a changing balance of MEDRS, the health effects of alcohol are liable to be something we'll have a fair number of arguments about. Would it be possible to forstall using up editor's time lots of little discussions by reaching a more general consensus early, with provision for updating it? HLHJ (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  No one has implied that he is "not doing the things".. in fact I said the opposite. The Benghazi "if" is shit rhetoric, so a trout for that. And no, about lifting the other ban now. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Given that some progress has been made with this editor, we could give Sbelknap a trial period of, say, one month of restriction free editing. During that time, he's to be treated as any other editor not under a topic ban. After that period the topic ban is reimposed, unless there is a consensus in favor of lifting the restrictions permanently or for renewing the temporary lifting (e.g. if he hasn't edited much during the trial period). Count Iblis (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I do not know the previous cases but I know that he is rather hammering on Talk:Whisky about the negative effects from alcohol. He added this twice to the article Whisky first here and after a revert here. The Banner talk 15:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The first edit was undue, but second edit was better - we should have a brief summary with wiki links to articles that cover alcohol abuse, dependence and health consequences of alcohol. All our other individual drug articles, recreational or prescribed, have at least brief summary of adverse effects, why should alcohol be treated differently?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban: I do not see a consensus above for a topic ban of Sbelknap and the arguments in favour are not convincing. User:Jayron32’s original complaint above actually shows Sbelknap to be competently removing outdated sources and adding recent high quality sources in compliance with WP:MEDRS, as User:Jytdog has pointed out. If this was an obscure topic area receiving little or no active research then maybe deleting those sources could be an issue, but the effects of alcohol on mortality is an active area of research and thus we should be replacing sources older than 3-5 years with recent high quality sources, just like User:Sbelknap did. Another reason for opposing the topic ban is that, as User:Kendall-K1 points out above, there has been little or no effort to try to reason with Sbelknap about their edits on talk pages. It seems User:Sbelknap did try to initiate conversation on talk pages but was ignored, so, under these circumstances, to topic ban him is unfair. I also agree with WhatamIdoing’s thoughts on this matter. I think the only concern is mildly UNDUE editing at individual alcohol articles, where brief summary of some of the effects of alcohol consumption pointing to the health effects of alcohol, as suggested by User:WhatamIdoing, would’ve been better. User:Jytdog has posted above that Sbelknap is liaising with him, which is yet another reason not to topic ban this editor. We need good grounds to topic ban anyone, especially an expert knowledgable contributor such as Sbelknap. It does seem that some people, without sufficient knowledge of WP:MEDRS and the health effects of alcohol, have expressed (weak) opinions here in favour of topic banning an editor (who was for the most part making competent edits that improved our articles). We don’t topic ban competent editors who are improving articles just because they made a couple of mildly UNDUE edits.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Sandbox inappropriately moved to mainspace

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 page MINE is User:1002348supers's sandbox, which was just moved into article space, this needs to be undone so people looking for articles about mining for minerals or landmines don't find this instead, but when I tried to move it it said I had to ask an admin. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Returned to userspace where it belongs. I've admonished the editor. Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Southeast michigan dead bird hoax vandal

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

---

there is a user ip hopping and putting hoaxs on the following pages Garden City, Michigan

Westland, Michigan

Livonia, Michigan

Inkster, Michigan Do you think the pages should be locked or not?69.14.221.97 (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a bunch more. Protection would not be effective. Materialscientest has blocked the original, but they've hopped to a different range. John from Idegon (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The ips seem to be open proxys69.14.221.97 (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

69 and other interested parties: this is the recent change report for Michigan subjects. I'm monitoring it, feel free to do likewise. John from Idegon (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Chika Nwobi 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.

---

There has been some back and forth regarding this page. Recently, the majority of the page's sources were removed because the main reviewer found them to be too promotional. With all of those sources deleted, I'm afraid there's no use for the article because it will then be improperly cited. You can find discussions about this topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chika Nwobi‎ and User talk:GSS. Leapsandbounds (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Leapsandbounds 15:28 5, September 2018

Not clear why this is on ANI. Since the article is at AfD, presumably whether it is kept or not will be taken care of there?--regentspark (comment) 17:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking at the Chika Nwobi: Revision history The AfD nominator has removed the allegedly spammy references and the original Author Leapsandbounds seems to be upset about it and is edit warring to restore the links. Leapsandbounds Please post those links in the AfD page below your comment if you believe that those links should be seen by AfD contributors. Edit warring to restore without valid reasons is inappropriate. In any case this is not an Admin issue. Let us know if you need any further Admin help here.--DBigXrayᗙ 21:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Elon Musk Main 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.

---

There is a duplicate paragraph on the page of Elon Musk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batyodi (talk • contribs) 08:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Batyodi: If you put more details on Talk:Elon Musk as to what is duplicated, someone can help fix this. This noticeboard isn't for content disputes. Iffy★Chat -- 08:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Block 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.

---

193.240.59.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi. IP 193.240.59.34 is the IP sock of a blocked user. They've been blocked twice at this IP in the last few weeks. I'd be grateful if they could be re-blocked again, ideally until 2nd Oct, which relates to the page they keep editing. Any questions, please ping me or drop a note on my talkpage. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Widr while I was investigating.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Vandalizing 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.

---

Special:Contributions/208.119.81.194 has been making unconstructive and unencyclopedic edits to pages lately. See the contributions page for examples. Please note that this IP has been blocked previously. I found this while random-paging, and I thought such behavior would warrant admin attention. Please resolve. TempestGD (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to 208.119.81.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), they have not made any edits since August 31st. In addition, reports for vandals should start at WP:AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a shared IP belonging to a library too. I don't mean to sound mean in saying this, but blocking it would be silly, in my opinion. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the person who started this thread is now CheckUser blocked. I recommend a speedy close. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Long term copyright violations and other issues with Nauriya

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.

---

Nauriya has been engaging in mass copyright violations since 2013. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Faizanali.007.

Though it was revealed only in 2018 that Faizanali.007 is his account, after I had seen him making suspicious edits in the area of India-Pakistan conflicts and filing of SPIs against the opponents editing India-Pakistan conflicts with whom he never interacted before, I discovered in July 2018[300] that Nauriya is sock of Faizanali.007 (talk · contribs) and has abused multiple socks throughout these years.

The SPI ended up with a warning that any more instances of "socking/meatpuppetry/copyright violation" will result in block.[301][302] Though the decision was very gracious but has failed to bring any change. Neither meatpuppetry stopped,[303] nor the copyright violations.[304]

Just yesterday (on 4 September), he created Economic Advisory Council (Pakistan),[305] where he violated copyrights by copy pasting large chunk content from other sources. It is worrying that this happened only 3 days after he was warned already on 1 September where the warning noted that "Please be more careful, or you risk being blocked from editing".[306]

Apart from all that, some other recent violations include the upload of File:Pak Serzameen Shaad Baad music sheet.jpg from 23 August.

To this day, majority of his image uploads have been deleted for infringing copyrights.[307][308][309]

I am also concerned with the articles he has created. For example his two times creation of Wasi Shah with his both accounts (Nauriya, Faizanali.007) with both versions using POV tone and unsourced or poorly sourced statements and praises about the non-notable individual. The recreation has been salted because it was frequently created by socks. Nauriya later created article about Bhool where he referred Wasi Shah as "veteran writer and poet Syed Wasi Shah".[310]

His recent edit on WP:ITN reads "Previously Imran Khan blurb was not approved and now this. Pakistan is not a small country to be ignored like this. All British smallest elected/selected members gets INTR and when it comes to this, it becomes ceremonial. Then why Geremany blurb was posted."[311] Apparently the points he made were proven to be misleading.[312]

Nauriya has been indeffed two times for copyright violations,[313][314], none of which were ever successfully appealed since he switched to sock with another account after failing to appeal the block for copyright violations.[315][316] Given the long term recurring copyright problems as well as other issues, and gazillions of warnings for multiple issues, it seems that these blocks and warnings have failed to bring any improvement. Lorstaking (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The SPI you filed seems to have been closed as unconclusive by @Bbb23: who also cautioned you about mudslinging at the time, but I'll ping them in so they can verify. Regardless, it seems like you have a long-term grudge with this editor and are forum-shopping to get them in trouble. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you missed the self-admission of Nauriya where he admits the named accounts to be his own, "I have been assessed for all these accounts. And they were all when"[317]? In any case, stop derailing the sensible report. GenuineArt (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You mean the bit where Nauriya confirmed that the socks (which at this point have all been inactive 5 years) were a mistake they wouldn't repeat? It seems like the Standard Offer would have long since applied for any blocks involved; but I'll leave that to the filing clerk on the investigation, who I pinged. It seems strange you'd call something like that disruptive when there's some evidence to suggest hounding (IE: trying to dredge up five year old mistakes in hopes of getting somebody indeffed on flimsy ground.)Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It was a strange decision to let him off even after discovery of sock puppetry. Copyright violation did occurred and in a deliberate manner. GenuineArt (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• My previous mistakes has already been discussed and I have given my explanation. You don't have to bring that again and again to prove that I am disruptive or not good for Wikipedia. Regarding copyrights, I admit it is my mistake, and for recently I have removed the copyrighted part, and I already saw the conversation on the talk of admin you started, and Diannaa has said to watch me for my edits. Other than that it is a case of hounding as if you are watching me, after you failed to get me blocked previously. I really don't know what to say in my defence, because this is a pattern you are following and trying to get me blocked. It is nothing but a grudge and trying everything to get me blocked. For copyrights, I will accept admins decision or punishment, but you are not only hounding but harassing me by doing such things. Please stop hounding and if it is my mistake ask me to make it correct, but instead you always go for block. Previously this editor has also hounded me like this, and he was warned for this, but clearly he and might be others are watching me for any mistakes I make in future, which eventually would help them get their agenda. Please I ask admins to look into this. Nauriya, Let's talk - 15:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• No one has the time to keep asking you to "make it correct" when you are being a long term unrepentant copyright violator with apparent behavioral problems. GenuineArt (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Just to weed out the conclusion from the mess of an SPI that Lorstaking linked to: Nauriya and Faizanali.007 were found unrelated ([318]) - they are not socks, the previous copyright investigation was for a different user. Lorstaking has a weird history of insisting that their sockpuppetry allegations are infallible even after many users tell them they're wrong, and it's true that I recently warned them to knock it off, though that was related to a different case. (struck per subsequent discussion, turns out I just made more of a mess Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)) That said, copyright is serious, and while Diannaa has already said she's going to keep a close eye on Nauriya's editing, I do tend to agree with DBigXray's suggestion to remove Nauriya's autopatrolled and reviewer userrights since it seems they can't be trusted to respect copyright. But the linked investigation from five years ago is entirely irrelevant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: Nauriya admitted to be Faizanali.007 and in fact "all these accounts" that were suspected per his own admission.[319] Bbb23 found Nauriya to be unrelated to International Editor Shah,[320] who is not Faizanali.007. GenuineArt (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• @GenuineArt: Regardless of whether or not any of those accounts were linked by SPI to this user, none of these accounts have been active in half a decade. It's not a strong case for any ongoing disruption. Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I find all above diffs to be very recent though. Given indef blocks were tried earlier, this time we need to think of a more stricter measure to deal with this severe issue. GenuineArt (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Ivanvector's suggested course of action. To wit:
  • The socking issue is really old, and just muddies the water here.
  • The copyvio issue, on the other hand, is current and serious. Nauriya should understand that further excuses are not going to carry much weight, and any future image/text copyvio is likely to lead to a indef block. Thanks Diannaa for offering to keep an eye on the user's contributions.
  • In the meantime, I support removal of auto-patrolled and reviewer user-rights given Nauriya's weak understanding of the copyright policies.

Abecedare (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment TLDR version: I do "not" think a block is needed here.
  • Long version (busy with RL but wanted to get this in before it was closed):
  • I agree that the editor is a mixed bag with issues on Copy-right violations, past blocked accounts and some instances of suspected proxy editing (which I was the receiving end of) but the editor, IMO, is a net positive for Wikipedia. The copy-right violations, IMO, have not occurred out of malice but more out of ignorance of rules and can be corrected.
  • Their contributions on TV series, movies and related articles has been very useful and as far as I can tell have greatly aided in improving the content in that area. Plus, the user seems to have a genuine interest in that area and the need is to correctly channel this.
  • I had mentioned my concerns about Copyright understanding earlier ([321]) and somehow it was construed as me trying to get back at the editor (don't blame the admins for that, if someone reported you then you somehow cannot be seen as wanting to do the right thing for them). Maybe, if this exercise was done at that moment, then this would have not have come to this. I did not wish that the editor to be blocked then nor do I wish that now. However, uploading copyright issues is serious and I have been blocked once for this very issue. In this case, I think what is needed is that we make an attempt to have the user understand what constitutes a copy-right violation and why it is harmful for Wikpedia. A simple way to do this is to have the user write a statement on what they did wrong. If the user does not get it correct, then we have to them rewrite it until they get it correct.
  • In my views, we must make an attempt to help the user understand our CR rules and their reasons better and I am sure they will and continue to contribute positively to the project.
  • For the sake of full disclosure, it was I who bought the recent image copyright violation to Diannaa's attention (was watching the user's uploads based on my concerns raised earlier). But I did not wish the user to be blocked (for the above mentioned reasons) and thus did not pursue this any further.
  • I have no further comments on the two proposals below. There are admins and senior editors here who I am sure can make the correct decision. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adam, (TLDR: Your proposal has been tried and failed multiple times) In reply to ur quote we must make an attempt to help the user understand our CR rules Do you really believe that in last 10 years attempts were not made in that regard ? Did you check out the links above and the talk page history of Nauriya and his old socks, cluttered with Warnings ? he had enough warnings and time to understand the rules. "Copying content to Wikipedia is not allowed" isn't really that hard to understand, especially when you get several blocks for that. This is either a WP:IDHT or WP:CIR and proposals have been made to address the Long term abuse. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• FYI, I have made a CCI request, as that will be needed no matter what the outcome of this thread is: [322]. Fram (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: upload ban & revoke userrights

I don't want to step on Diannaa's proposal, but I'm hopeful we can head off another thread of partisan mudslinging with a quick solution. Since Nauriya (talk · contribs) seems to be either unwilling or unable to abide by our copyright policy, as evidenced by recent (not five-year-old) violations, I propose that their autopatrolled right be revoked (due to creating a page this week that was a copyright violation) and that they be banned from image uploads indefinitely, subject to the usual appeal process.

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: I edit-conflicted with what Abecedare wrote above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I removed the user's autopatrolled and pending changes reviewer rights before I saw Ivanvector's proposal. I am assuming those removals will not be controversial; frankly, Nauriya should consider themselves fortunate to be getting this "last, last warning" rather than a block. Abecedare (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, what's done is done, I'm not going to nitpick. When I wrote the proposal I elected to leave out reviewer because it's less related to creating copyvios, though I suppose if the issue is that Nauriya can't spot a copyvio (rather than deliberately adding them) then we also shouldn't trust them to review other users' creations. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ivan, as you guessed I removed Nuriya's reviewer right with the view that an editor whose contributions need so much oversight, should not be reviewing/clearing others' edits. Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Was going to Support and see Abecedare already did it anyway. So... That's fine. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Like Abecedare said above that the copyright issue is current and recurring for large period. I propose adding the line to the above proposal that "any future image/text copyvio is likely to lead to a indef block",(per Abecedare) which can be appealed only to community. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally that's implied for this sort of sanction, but I would support stating explicitly that any future copyright violations will result in blocks. I'm not in favour of specifying that such a block must be indefinite (I prefer admin discretion) but Nauriya ought to realize by now that indef is likely to be the case, given all these warnings. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ivan thanks for considering my suggestion on the user rights and appreciate your compassion. Looking at Nauriya's reply, it does not appear to me that he really understands why he is being sanctioned or a remorse for it. All I see here is more WP:BATTLE behavior and accusing other editors. With so many warnings and blocks (on older user accounts) and still defaulting on CopyVios, I see here either an extreme case of WP:CIR or more likely a deliberate WP:IDHT to violate policies for POV pushing. And a block warranted for either of the cases--DBigXrayᗙ 20:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support because this seems to be the right solution. Oppose any changes suggested to Ivanvector's proposal. Son of Kolachi (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Indef 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.

---

For Long term abuse. Final Warning on any future socking/copyvio/proxying or similarly disruptive activity was already given on 11 July 2018, 13 July 2018 and another CopyVio related Final warning on 1 September 2018. Which was answered with another CopyVio article on 4 September 2018. This medicine of final warning is well past its expiry date and the behaviour is now clearly a "mockery of the due process". I propose we stop wasting more time with editors not willing to learn.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block/site ban (as proposer) Looking at Nauriya's reply, it does not appear to me that he really understands why he is being sanctioned or a remorse for it. All I see here is more WP:BATTLE behavior and accusing other editors. With so many warnings and blocks (on older user accounts) and still defaulting on CopyVios, I see here either an extreme case of WP:CIR or more likely a deliberate WP:IDHT to violate policies for POV pushing. And a block warranted for either of the cases. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block site ban with proposed restrictions. Nauriya's own comments above gives lack of confidence that why copyvio won't occur again or if they understand the basics of this issue.[323] Proposed restrictions should continue to remain after successful unblock. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block as this user continues to not get the point. Their comment also shows a lack of knowledge of the responsibility of his actions. The Duke ^{Talk page, please ping me anywhere else.} 20:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block/ban We're well beyond the point of rope. This is a LTA. --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Socking to evade copyvio blocks. FOUR FINAL WARNINGS but still creating copyvios. Softlavender (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC); edited 13:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of first proposal for a limited ban. We're dealing with one problem, a serious one admittedly, but going full site ban is a bit like using a sledgehammer to drive in a nail. We should try a crafted sanction before kicking someone off the site. If that doesn't work then a site ban is pretty clearly the next step. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

could have agreed with you for a new clueless editor, but this is a Long term Abuse + Copyright Violations + Battlefield mindset + POV pushing --DBigXrayᗙ 23:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

They've been kicked off the site before. Multiple times. They have a SPI case page as long as my arm. The ONLY reason they got to stay was because someone took pity on them with one of their socks and said "Okay as long as you behave." They have not behaved. --Tarage (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Doesn't seem to learn. Repeated disruptive editing + no signs of learning from mistakes —> indefinite block. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef ban for showing no concerns over the long term socking and copyright violations. Article creations also seems suspicious as they show clear shift in language and editing style. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand the decision the of admins made previously for revoking my rights, but saying I don't show concern over the matter is not right. What is done, I can not bring it back, so I was looking what decisions admin would make. But proposing this, again and again is not justified, previously too you all tried to get me blocked, and now again you are doing this. If it is not hounding then what is that? I don't know why admins are not seeing that, I accept the decision for my mistakes, but def block is bit too much. Given what admins have said, I will comply. But this is seriously a pattern where you are trying to get us all blocked. I request admins for a just decision. Again I am saying I completely understand what has been said, but I don't know how to convince more, other than that please look for my future edits. Nauriya, Let's talk - 6:40, 6 September 2018.

• Support: Per WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. Persistent copyright violation and sock puppetry for 6 years was never properly addressed by this user, and the ongoing copyright violations after warnings and blocks gives us no other choice. This edit alone should have resulted in topic ban from WP:ARBIPA. Refusal to address the meat puppetry and/or recreation of non-notable articles with promotional unsourced content (e.g. Wasi Shah) only legitimizes this view. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block/ban. I agree that this behavior is unjustifiable. WP:COPYVIO states persistent violators should be "blocked without warning for the protection of the project". Nauriya is lucky to have been warned for this long. GenuineArt (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Clarification - there still seems to be confusion about the sockpuppetry issue. Nauriya's 2013 sockpuppets are documented in the single report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizanali.007. From this there are two blocks for copyvio and one for socking, all from 2013. Yamla put a confusing note on Faizanali.007's user page suggesting a connection to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/International Editor Shah, the source of the Wasi Shah article (which has been moved to Lorstaking's userspace for some reason, courtesy ping Jimfbleak), but Bbb23 determined this was incorrect ([324]). I don't know if basing a site ban proposal off this is a genuine mistake or more ARBIPA bad blood, but I know which one I think it is. Regardless, there is no evidence that Nauriya has socked at all since the 2013 incident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• It was sock puppetry since he was not using his main account but was evading the block with a newer account (Nauriya) while still sharing the same issues as his older accounts. He did this until July 2018, and was allowed to continue editing with his sock account (but technically he had to edit as Faizanali.007). The sockpuppetry issue only affirms that the editor has no credibility. Finally, he never addressed the meat puppetry that actually got him into trouble.[325] While here, he is not addressing the issues including copyvio - just like he hasn't for 6 years now. --RaviC (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• (ec)Clarification of the clarification. There indeed still seems to be confusion, but it is mainly caused by posts like this one. "Regardless, there is no evidence that Nauriya has socked at all since the 2013 incident. " is an extremely twisted representation of the facts: the sockpuppet case was in July 2018, so they have been socking non-stop since 2013 until 2018. Have they created more accounts after they started socking in 2013? No, why should they, they were never caught. Block evasion by using a sock is in itself an instant block for that account. Evading an indef block for copyvio, by socking with a new account which starts off where the blocked account finished (e.g. this February 2014 edit is a copyvio from this september 2013 text), and which continued adding copyvio's despite mutliple final warnings and even during this debate, is enough for a full site ban for any half-decent admin. Presenting the false dilemma "basing a site ban proposal off this is a genuine mistake or more ARBIPA bad blood" is of course a logical fallacy. You oppose stated "We're dealing with one problem" (ignoring the socking completely), but that "one problem" will take countless hours to rectify (as it will necessitate another CCI to clean up five years of copyright violations), and is only caused by this user who was already indef blocked for the same problem, but choose to ignore that rather clear message, and all the other messages they got about the exact same problem. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment guys, put down the WP:STICK over the alleged sock puppetry. It's clouding the legitimate issue here and isn't convincing anyone who didn't come here specifically to get an editor they dislike banned on trumped up grounds. There's been no confirmation of sock puppetry from his account since 2013. You may assert he's socking, but he's not. He's been disciplined appropriately already for the CopyVio issue, and now all this is pretty obvious bad blood. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• No need to put down the stick as long as people are spreading or believing falsehoods. "There's been no confirmation of sock puppetry from his account since 2013." You mean, apart from the July 2018 thread where it became clear that they had been socking since 2013? Of course he hadn't created further new socks in 2014, 2015, ... why would he? They had sock avoided the indef block of their account, that's all they needed; but that doesn't mean that the socking stopped, the socking continued until now. "He's been disciplined appropriately already for the CopyVio issue"? Umm, he has continued with copyvio since before 2013 until at least two days ago. What sanction has he receibed since then? Never mind "appropriately"? "It's clouding the legitimate issue here and isn't convincing anyone who didn't come here specifically to get an editor they dislike banned on trumped up grounds." Thank you, it convinced me, so apparently I'm now here because I dislike Nauriya, even though I had never heard of them before this thread, and have to the best of my knowledge never interacted with them, and have got no interest in the ARBIPA disputes either (I don't even know and don't care whether they are supposed to be I or PA here). Please stop with the ABF and the hugely misleading statements about sockpuppetry. Fram (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• He was not found by an admin or checkuser clerk to be socking in 2018. Can you please just stop it? Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• He admitted that he was the sock of multiple copyvio blocked editors. This was only discovered in 2018. While one incorrect account was suggested as well (and that one was indicated as unrelated), the others were undisputed. If you have multiple indef blocked accounts, and then succeed in creating one that escapes scrutiny for a while, it doesn't mean that you are no longer socking of course, only that you are continuing your disruption under the radar. Who do you think you are fooling here? Fram (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think I'm fooling anyone about anything. I'm just getting frustrated with this obvious and blatant battleground behaviour and I would like it to stop. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

.... and let the Long term abuse continue. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the first proposal, which I support, is doing. It's punishing the serious CopyVio issue, and showing that the user is on tenuous ground with community trust and giving them a last chance to contribute constructively but when people start dredging up stuff from 2013 to try and pull an indef that wouldn't otherwise be an indef, yeah, I get a bit stubborn about that sort of behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: In place of being a poster child of WP:CIR, consider accepting the facts as they are. Nauriya was convicted of being a sock in 2018 and was engaging in excessive meatpuppetry when he was reported and continues to engage in meatpuppetry per diff added above.[326] GenuineArt (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• If you would like it to stop, then don't attack people who correct falsehoods, don't accuse them of being here to "ban an editor they dislike on trumped up grounds", basically, don't project your ABF attacks unto others. Indef banning someone who has been adding copyvio's incessantly for more than five years and has received multiple earlier blocks and "final warnings" for this behaviour is not "weaponizing community sanctions", it is using such sanctions to prevent further disruption. This is not some clueless newbie, this is someone who has used up more chances than most problematic editors ever got. Fram (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

With respect, Simonm223, this user used up all of their "last chances to contribute constructively" a while ago. I don't agree with Fram's tone in this discussion, but I do agree with his points. The editor is an LTA case who has been using a sockpuppet for five years to perpetuate his copyvio violations and other disruptions after his previous accounts were blocked. He was given four final warnings recently but still persisted in the same behavior. Softlavender (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Frankly the personal attacks from Fram to myself have me considering making a complaint per WP:BOOMERANG. I don't think what's happening in this AN/I is right because I think it's an attempt from a group of editors who often collaborate to single out a perceived opponent and get them removed. Considering that context I'm disinclined to support their attempt when another alternative which addresses the actual problem has been proposed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What personal attacks? You are the one who claimed that the sock accusation "isn't convincing anyone who didn't come here specifically to get an editor they dislike banned on trumped up grounds.". As they convinced me (and some others apparently), you are explicitly accusing me of disliking this editor and coming here specifically for that reason, which is not true at all. Feel free to start a new section or subsection for your "boomerang", I don't think it will get you very far though. There is a difference between having a more direct tone and making personal attacks. Fram (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

How about the bit where you said I was "spreading falsehoods"? I felt that was pretty far over the line. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's see: you make a claim about me (and others) who are convinced by the sock claims. I explain that your claim isn't true. You don't provide evidence for your claim, and neither do you retract it. On the other hand, you claim that they haven't been found socking, when they have admitted it themselves. If someone is editing in 2018 while their original account is indef blocked, then they are socking in 2018. It doesn't matter that the block of the previous accounts and the creation of this account were in 2013, they were editing with their sock in 2018. Yet you claim "He was not found by an admin or checkuser clerk to be socking in 2018.". So that makes at least two clear falsehoods you are spreading. Whether you spread them deliberately as falsehoods, or whether you are convinced that they are true, I have no means to know. But that you don't withdraw them after their problems have been pointed out is troubling. Fram (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, "Who do you think you are fooling here? " was implying I was trying to deceive people. Again a personal attack. Especially when combined with the highly combative tone you've struck throughout this conversation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Out of the 11 people who have so far supported an indef block or ban, which ones do you perceive as "collaborat[ing] to single out a perceived opponent and get them removed"? Although I feel that Fram's tone and edit summaries are a bit harsh, I don't see him attacking you; I see him as getting at and posting the truth amidst a fairly cluttered discussion. Softlavender (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That's probably quite easy - I'd suggest looking at this thread and this one, also about banning a user and see which editors active in the ARBIPA area popped up to support both. That's obviously not the same in the cases of good-faith editors separate from ARBIPA territory who have weighed in here. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban per my "clarification of the clarification" right above. 5 Years of copyvio's with a sock to avoid a previous indef block for copyvio? No brainer. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban per the concerns raised and Nauriya's own response. As indicated in the initial post, the creations of Nauriya are indeed concerning. It turns out that the editors who were digging deeper into contributions of Nauriya were successful in most of their deletion discussions that discussed the creations by Nauriya.[327][328][329] A cleanup of problematic creations and edits would be needed. RaviC (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an attempt to weaponize community sanctions and I'm not at home for it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Before I would ask why you and Ivanvector are the only ones fighting tooth to nail to rescue a copyright violator, I would like to ask other questions. Haven't you operated Ivanvector's Wikipedia account for making edits?[330] Are there any strong reasons that why you are popping up these days in highly unrelated disputes that involve Ivanvector but not actually you by a long shot? Your defense of Nauriya is going to mislead the onlookers that you are here for Nauriya when fact remains that you don't share any history with him. What made you place your comment incorrectly right here?[331] --RaviC (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• No. I will note that Ivanvector and I are friends; a casual perusal of our talk pages will confirm that. And in this instance, yes, I agree with my friend's reasoning. But I can assure you that I have not edited Wikipedia with his account, nor he with mine. *Outside of the one time in 2009 at the diff you showed which was an accident which occurred while visiting his place and using his laptop. It was an honest mistake on my part. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  As for my motivation opposing the indef here? I prefer the more restrained option. I suspect canvassing occurred in this AN/I and after my personal (rather long-ago) history with pages where canvassing occurred to the detriment of all I have a rather negative reaction to even a suspicion of that. His reasons for getting involved are his own. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: At the risk of insulting people's intelligence by assuming they don't know something they already know; and at the risk of muddying the waters in an attempt to clarify: One problem is that sock puppetry and block evasion are technically different, but frequently used interchangeably by nearly everyone, so sometimes people talk past each other. No, Nauriya has apparently not been using multiple accounts recently, pretending to be more than one person. But they have been using an alternate account to evade a block for 5 years, while continuing with the same problematic behavior that led to the block. Many people call that sockpuppetry too. I suspect the differing definitions could be at the root of the misunderstanding here. No comment on what to do about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) @Fram: as usual, I appreciate your insight despite your aggressive tone. Up to your first post here, nobody had provided any evidence that there were ongoing copyright violations, there were only editors with dubious motivation misstating facts about one copyright violation in July and another a few days ago. As for socking I misspoke: by Nauriya's own admission they've been using that account since 2013 while the others were blocked; when I said "hasn't been socking" I should have said something like "hasn't used multiple socks" or "hasn't created multiple accounts". But you are right and I do not disagree that this is still block evasion. Abecedare and Bbb23 also seem to have agreed to the same when they offered Nauriya clemency (my words) after the 2018 SPI, and on that basis I said "not sockpuppetry". Of course it is, but I would not block on that basis given the entire set of circumstances.

But that all comes back around to the ongoing copyright violations which you so expertly deduced. Two copyvios would hardly be worth a siteban, but if they've continued with copyvios all this time, then Nauriya has been either dishonest or incompetent. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle, and at this point the solution to both is a block. I do question the motives and methods of many of the supporters, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Surely you wouldn't go ahead to propose user-rights removal and ban from uploading images only over "two copyvios" but like everyone else you must have read the diffs found in the original post by me where I linked the SPI that in turn linked copyright violations that occurred throughout 2018 and in the above ANI post I also linked the image upload logs that covers copyright violations from every single month or otherwise establishes that copyright violations are occurring for last six years, non stop.[332][333][334] You don't have to "question the motives and methods of many of the supporters" or assume any sort of bad faith. We are discussing a long term disastrous issue that lacks any justification. There are valid reasons involved in this report and that's why everyone else already supported indef block/ban. Lorstaking (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block per this edit, and suggest that any consideration of unblocking include conditions I suggested in the earlier proposal. I'd appreciate if someone would strike my "oppose" comment up this thread, I'm on mobile and the thread is too long for my phone to grab it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Fram. The violations are rather obvious now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the practical reason that monitoring an account that we know of for copyright violations is much easier than monitoring one we don't know of. If this account is indef-blocked a new one may appear, as apparently happened last time. Revocation of autopatrol and reviewer rights, as has already been done, should be sufficient. 28bytes (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• "If this account is indef-blocked a new one may appear, as apparently happened last time." Is this is a reason why he should be given the status of unblockable? Lorstaking (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Of all what has been said and written against or in favour, I am surprised how this bashing and negativity is ignored during the process. I am going to state somethings once and for all - one final time. Here it goes:

1. Yes I created those accounts in 2013 and moved on with this one since then. I wish I knew more back then or aware that you have to disclose previous accounts (blocked ones) if you are creating another. I have explained this all in the July thread filed against me. But I think that was not sufficient.

2. I haven't created other accounts for sock puppetry or used those previous accounts single time during all the year or nor I have used anyone else's account to create any edit.

3. Yes I had copyright issues for uploading images and I was warned, and I stopped. But not completely and this is my mistake.

4. My area of interest is listed on my talk page, however, in July 2018 I went through this mass edit warning on India-Pakistan issues and filled an SPI for an editor and that user instead filed for me out of revenge and this is when all information came forward. But truth be told I had no intentions to hide it from anyone, because at that time I was in China, where with paid VPN you can not used Google products. That is why this account didn't caught the attention of admins otherwise this issue would have been dealt back then, and I regret that I should have known and disclose this to admins. Again this was explained briefly in previous thread of July.

5. After that ANI thread was closed, Lorstaking deliberately went to hound me and was warned to stay away. But of course they were watching for any mistake I could make so they can get me banned anyway.

6. Recently in Ausgust I was twice warned by Dianna, and I was going to send her email that I wont upload and will abide by the policy and will take care of copyrights and I had already emailed the copyright holder but didn't get reply. Before this happened my recently created article was tagged by Lorataking for copyrights which again I accept it was my mistake and I removed that part.

7. Then he went onto file this with all the previous details to weight on his motive to get me blocked. And seemingly it is going great.

8. I truly accept my mistake for copyrights and I am ready to comply for the decisions admin made initially for a watch over my edits and revoking my rights.

9. Unfortunately this wasn't enough for all those who were waiting for this moment and they started opening history by inviting their fellow editors to post or vote against me. And this has been the case previosuly but respected admins are ignoring this fact continuously, regardless this case is true or not.

10. In this case, people went onto bash and accused me of fake accounts, meat puppetry and what not. I don't even know how to respond to such things and I always accept my mistake and problem where it was true.

11. Then I am here continusely accused of not understanding the situation and to respond to that, I can not undo for what is done but instead can uphold for future. But again that will be unconvincing and will be ignored.

12. Before this where were these usual editors who never interacted with me but started hounding after July incident when they were involved in Indian-Pakistan related edits conflicts and since then it is there agenda to get all of us blocked one way or another, which is again ignored by all the admins.

13. To all other who thinks and have made decision that I am disruptive and useless editor. I say this to them everyone make mistake and make again and again, I did too, for that I accept the punishment but only which actually justify for my mistakes.

14. This is nothing but revenge, vengeance, and hate using something against me when there real motive is clear, but nobody is speaking.

15. I know my mistake and I apologize for that. But all of the above discussion against my five years work is not only hurtful but it bilittle me for all that is written above.

17. I literally have nothing else to add because I have accepted my mistake but I denied all other accusations and I am appalled by all of you for going on such great lengths when I have not even interacted any of the above editors accusing me, excluding Lorstalking with whom I only know after what happened July.

This website means a lot to me, I am not very active in many projects or diverse editor rather I make edits in areas where my interests lies and they are entertainment. I have given time to my work, as this is my only hobby and tried my best to understand to best of my knowledge, If I was weaken in that, I would have been subject to just decision/punishment but clearly this would not be a just decision for site banning/indef block and I clearly understand the situation I am in.

Again whatever I have written will be ignored and as always this hounding and revenge thing will win. Yesterday it was someone else today it is me and tomorrow it is going to be another, it is going to happen again and I want to ask all who has athourity when they are going to look into this issue? I was not reported here by an admin, but those who already wanted to get me blocked. Usually I have seen threads where cases are filled between parties who are involved in edit warning and mutual disruption but this case is clearly a result of their motive who previously banned two Paksitani editors, whether they were right or not, I am not justifying them in any way but this is a pattern being ignored, again and again.

I want to thank you for whoever supported me or aided me with right and just decision. So here I am, asking admins to close this discussion with whatever decision they have decided to make. Because this is torture for me to see such discussion. Thank you. Nauriya, Let's talk - 19:30, September 6, 2018 (UTC).

You still believe that you can make a point by falsifying everything and shifting blame on others who are not responsible for your violations.

(1) You were always aware of WP:SOCK. (2) You switched to a new account whenever you were blocked on any account, nothing new there. (3) You have frequently violated copyvio. (4) You were engaging in meat puppetry and your reports were spurious. (5) There was no "that ANI" ever before, let alone any warnings that never happened. (6) Still you never considered any of the gazillions of warnings. (7) How "great" the report is, it really depends on evidence that you, not I, have created. (8) copyright violation is most serious violation, you still don't realize that. (9) Not everyone is your enemy. (10) They said what actually happened, you can still try proving them wrong if they are wrong or they are saying something incorrect about you. (11) You really don't understand the violations or you are deliberately engaging in them. (12) Regulars at ANI/AN commenting on one of the many proposal is not surprising. (13) You said this in July 2018[335] and also during the unblock requests of your past accounts.[336][337] To this day there has been no improvement but continued rise in incompetence, battleground mentality, IDHT, among other issues. (14) Same as #13. (15) Same as #13. (17) Not just me, you have also interacted RaviC, Kautilya3,[338] Adamgerber80,[339] and more from this thread.

I note that there was no point "16". It is really astonishing that you still don't understand what you are doing. Lorstaking (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef For copyvio issues and apparent unwillingness to change their behavior after numerous "final warnings". {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 01:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Issues with closure

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.

---

Starting this as this issue has been already discussed by multiple users with Ritchie333.[342]

Per these diffs[343][344] the block as normal admin made by Ritchie333 has disregarded not only the community consensus to indef block/siteban but also the banning policy, especially WP:CBAN. The issue has been already discussed with Ritchie333 and he appears to have misunderstanding of this entire issue. Ritchie333 claimed that he made such decision because "Nauriya has never been blocked before"[345], contrary to the fact that Nauriya has been blocked indefinitely on his 3 previous accounts and nearly all supporters based their rational on the block evasion. "never been blocked before" is also contrary to the usual community bans such as this recent ANI discussion from 20 August, last month,[346] where Robertinventor with clean block log has been blocked per "ANI consensus",[347] and was told that "Your appeal route, should you desire it, is to WP:ARBCOM,"[348] per the regulations imposed on the editors who are "blocked after due consideration by the community". Ritchie also appears to have misrepresented the conclusion of SPI in his comments.[349]

This appears to be a WP:SUPERVOTE by Ritchie333 as also noted by Fram.[350] GenuineArt (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

I may be missing something, but the section above is a proposal for an indefinite block, not for a site ban. Whoever wants the user to be site-banned should have opened a new section, proposal for a site ban, no? (Purely procedural comment, no opinion on what should have happened to the user).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I see more support for site ban than indef block in above. Any sanction that has been imposed by community should be appealed to community only instead of leaving it to a single admin to decide whether the sanction should be overturned. Ritchie made the block as a normal admin action so that any admin can unblock Nauriya without community consensus, contrary to what usually happens including the example of Robertinventor linked above. GenuineArt (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Ritchie's closure was a correct reading of consensus. There was consensus for an indef block, and that's what he placed. If people want a site ban on top of that, they'll need to get consensus for it (although it would seem to be overkill at this point.) 28bytes (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC) @28bytes: Where does WP:CBAN state that you must gain separate consensus? Editors who are... indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". and Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. Nihlus 12:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC) This is right. No matter whether it was a indef block or site ban because the fact is that it was decided by the community. Such blocks should be appealed to community not before 6 months. Ritchie blocked as normal admin action, he didn't imposed the actual community decided block or ban. GenuineArt (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I might be mis-remembering things (and I can't find any discussion in the archives, either) but I think there was some broad discussion at some point of time as to the purview of the clause stated by Nihlus. Anyone? Apologies, if that's my mind playing tricks.∯WBGconverse 13:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I believe the discussion you're looking for was at one of the village pumps. I think it was around Feb 2017, and largely between Jytdog and myself before being put to an RfC. I'm unable to search for it at the moment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Yep. It started at AN here about an admin unblocking a community-indeffed editor, went to VPR here, and ended with an RfC at WP:BAN here, which was implemented here at WP:BAN and here at WP:BLOCK. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC) My apologies: you are right. I had not seen that change. 28bytes (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) This "issue" is moot. Ritchie333's block enacts the community consensus that this editor's editing privileges should be revoked; it's a community ban any way you look at it, and any path to appeal will involve a community discussion. We had a long discussion about a year ago to clarify the banning policy specifically to head off this sort of irrelevant side discussion, resulting in the wording Nihlus referred to above. There's nothing left to do here, everyone should really just go back to writing an encyclopedia now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Ivan, I believe that this route to appal should be clarified clearly, I believe the reason some editors raised this issue was due to the concern that any admin might unblock following a review of the Unblock template appeal. May I suggest to clearly mark it in stone--DBigXrayᗙ 13:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC) It is marked in stone, in the banning policy. See the links above. Again: see the links above. Did you see the links above? You should take a look at the links above. But really, actually have a read of the banning policy and the links to development of this section which are directly above. Maybe what you should actually read is WP:DEADHORSE or WP:STICK, but failing that, you should try reading the links above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Chill dude, no need to get hyper angry about it. Did you see the time stamps of the links above ? it was posted after my comment. So much for WP:AGF sigh. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Ivan, Ritchie himself made the block as single admin action, not the CBAN one. Like you referred that this is a "community ban" that should be appealed to community. But this needs to be clarified by Ritchie or some other admin to Nauriya per the consensus in this thread. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC) He did. "Following the discussion, I have concluded there is a clear consensus to block you indefinitely for repeated and persistent copyright violations." He said so on the talk page, and linked to the discussion in the block log. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Ritchie333 said "If you wish to appeal the block, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}."[351] and "I am fine for them to appeal the block through the usual processes."[352] He laid out terms for a normal block, not community ban. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Agree with Ivanvector. This is pointless Wikilawyering. He's been blocked, no admin is going to unilaterally overturn it without being dragged to ANI so there will be a community discussion one way or another. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC) In any case, Ritchie333 must modify his comment on User talk:Nauriya#September 2018 that this is a community ban and should be appealed to community after 6 months from now. That will solve the problem. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC) User:Ritchie333 There was concern expressed in the RfC behind the changes to policy (to WP:BLOCK, here, and to WP:BAN here), about admins properly noting and logging community-imposed indefs (which are a thing), to avoid good faith mistakes by admins in the future - nobody wants to make such a mistake. It would be helpful if you were to make any changes to the log(s) and notice to reflect those concerns and the policy. Would you please do so and note that here, so this can be laid to rest? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC) yes, I second Jytdog as I requested above, but was responded to with an angry retort from Ivan.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The discussion is linked in the block log entry. Do you mean add something onto Nauriya's talk page like "Administrators, do not unblock without community consensus" or something like that? I don't mind clarifying that so an admin doesn't put their foot in it - that makes sense. To carry on with the comments on my talk, most people in the above discussion wrote "Support indef block / ban" - maybe they meant "support indef block and also ban" but I interpreted it as "support either indef block or ban". AFAIK nobody said why an indefinite block was insufficient. In short, text communication is hard, so it pays to be very specific. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC) You need to update the userpage of Nauriya too with the Template:Banned user. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC) That is not correct. A community-imposed indef =/= BAN. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC) (incorrect Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)) Thanks for pointing that. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)x2. Thanks so much for replying Richie333. Both the log and the notice. As to the notice, yes, something like that on their page would be great (I wonder if we need a new block notice template, for these?) With regard to the block notice, that could be easily mistaken for you taking solo admin action based on concerns raised at ANI, if somebody doesn't actually follow the link. Other admins wanted explicit reference to "community sanction" or the like in the block log, to help them avoid making mistakes. So the language added to the policy based on that concern was If the block arose from a discussion per WP:CBAN, please include a link to the discussion in the block log. If the block is enforcing a community sanction, please note this as well. Thanks for considering that second sentence there. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Right, that's done, so it's very obvious that anyone pulling a cowboy unblock will be in trouble. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

The 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:Freddy Moloto

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.

---

Freddy Moloto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am aware the user hasnt been warned properly. The user has 28 (live) edits, all of which are self promotional. Basically, a high school student posing on enwiki as spouse of a pornstar. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

PS: Can somebody block him please? —usernamekiran(talk) 09:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Needing more eyes

I had Aghachi7 requesting New page reviewer today. I moved to eventually decline it because of the quality of articles they have been creating. The problem is, there are a ton of articles. When I went through Samson Olatunde, I found that the majority that was in the article was not listed in any source or was only listed on an WP:SPS source. Admins can see my removal of text before eventually looking at the whole article and realized it was purely a promotional piece and G11ing it. I went to review more articles they created. Dipo Awojide was deleted G11, Ademuyiwa Adebola Taofeek was deleted A1 and then A7, and User:Aghachi7/Linda Ikeji's Blog was deleted G11. Further upon reviewing some articles, I deleted Green Mbadiwe G11/A7, File:Alternate Sound band.jpg per G12. And i'm very tempted to delete Tchidi Chikere for G11. And that is every single article I took time to look at, deleted basically. The quality of this contributors articles is not par for what they need to be. A sanction in some form may be appropriate, but I'm primarily seeking help to review the rest of the articles by people who are better than content creation than I am.

Also this users attitude towards others seems to be very telling. Warning an IP for reverting while they were editing, an unconstructive edit warning to the same user, this warning for this edit. Also they are spamming others to review an article they created about 30 times. Also showing WP:OWN type behavior [353] -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I suspect this editor is also engaged in covert advertising. Apart from the above (Dipo Awojide and User:Aghachi7/Linda Ikeji's Blog are very concerning) we have Sheena Allen as a promotional puff piece about an American entrepreneur -- all of this editor's other created articles have a Nigerian aspect to them. If he is Nigerian, how likely is he to have taken File:Sheena Allen.jpeg? MER-C 20:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• While not yet proof of anything, that photo was almost certainly taken the same day in the same location as the photo in this article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the requirements to become a New Page Reviewer, And I do not see the requirement that the editor know how to create proper citations. Despite that, I would've anticipated the new page reviewers would have at least basic skills in creation of citations. While I do see an example in Sheena Allen, I looked at three other articles:Mike Okonkwo,Ejike Mbaka, and Tchidi Chikere, And all I see are bare URLs. That puzzles me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad:

The header "Needing more eyes" is absolutely appropriate. Actually we need more hands too.

1. I have dedicated my work to solely the Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria and I have been left to fend for the project myself. Putting up requests for articles, managing the project page itself, creating articles and fighting vandalism to the best of my ability. And I can say I have been the most active member on the project in recent times (to the best of my knowledge). The more seasoned editors haven't been as active as they used to and I had to step up. I put up requests for new articles to be created by the project members and every time I don't get feedbacks. The project is literally in comatose. Earlier today, I had to request that I be given mass message sender privilege to enable me send out messages so I can rally round enough man power, because we need to get the project back and running smoothly. Aghachi7 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that WikiProject Nigeria (along with a number of other wiki projects), are close to moribund. I'd like to support anyone who wants to reinvigorate such a project. I'm not close enough to the new page patrolling initiative to know whether you should be granted this right, but there are some troubling notes regarding some of the articles you are working on, some of which may arise from the lack of person power in this general area. Editors working in a vacuum don't benefit from the strengths of a collaborative project.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: thanks. You took the words right out of my mouth, so to speak. Wikipedia is a community. Its also a platform where one learns more about editing with each day spent Wikipedia thrives on collective effort, whether it's by teaching folks with less experience or its helping to get pages to be as neutral as possible. The essence of Wikipedia is defeated when one has to work alone

2. I have a big admiration for people with 50,000 edits and I want to be like them. Now this might sound like a corny excuse, but I believe you have to know a person's motivation before you can judge his actions better. I figured out the best way to get my edits and avoid edit warring (which I ran into alot my first months on Wikipedia) is to stay in my lane. So I create very good articles. Here is what I do, i go to pages with lists like Miss Nigeria, Mr Nigeria, List of Igbo people, etc and create articles for names on these lists that don't already have an article or names that should be on the list. If Mr A is notable enough to have an article for achieving the same thing Mr B also achieved, why doesn't Mr B have an article like Mr A. Right? I put up every article I am about to create on the WikiProject Nigeria page to encourage inclusiveness, unbiased edits and contributions from other editors.

Aghachi7 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Aghachi7, I understand where you're coming from, but over time the Wikipedia community has found it works best to stay out of the question of motivations and keep conversation focused on content. So I recommend taking on board any recommendations other editors are giving you in terms of how to improve your contributions (and DeltaQuad, I'll have a look at some entries and see what I can see as well, although unfortunately I'm not the most familiar with the sources in this particular area) and take the time you need to develop entries that meet minimum standards. (In particular, I recommend you review the policy WP:BASIC and make sure that all your biography subjects meet it, rather than assuming they qualify because another similar person has an entry.) I realize it's frustrating to see so many big gaps, and feel urgency about filling them, but your contributions will "stick" better if you make sure they are solid from the start, in terms of Wiki-policy. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll continue reading but in the main I think I'm too far out of my depth to evaluate quality of sources confidently. I put a note on NPR talk asking whether anyone with more regional expertise could help. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

One way would be to start with a WP:DRAFT and invite independent review before main space. What you're trying to do is good - we do not cover Nigerian topics well at all - but there will eb drama if you go it alone like this. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Good advice. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I know jack about sourcing for the area too @Innisfree987:. I'm absolutely willing to help review draft space before getting to mainspace, with what time I can spare. My problem is mainspace is indexed, and there was quite a bit of information not covered by any sourcing. I'll put up something in my userspace so we can at least review all the articles already out there.

@Aghachi7: The draft recommendation above is perfect. New articles should start there. I'd be happy to review in what spare time I have, but please understand there is no deadline. The biggest policy you need to read over is WP:BLPRS. Also, i'd be happy to talk to you about sourcing before you start an article, as in we review the sourcing before you put the work into it, so we don't always play cleanup and you can learn. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks DQ. If Aghachi7 is on board, I'll save other editorial suggestions for discussion at your userpage rather than clog up ANI. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate @Innisfree987:, @DeltaQuad: and @JzG:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghachi7 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Redoing ping because previous message wasn't signed: @Innisfree987, DeltaQuad, and JzG: Graham87 02:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've opened User:DeltaQuad/Aghachi7 to start the review process for those involved. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I am the current coordinator of WikiProject Nigeria, and was elected unanimously about a year ago. I take issue with your concerns on the WikiProject. Recall that I personally invited you to participate during the voting process but you ignored my post. If you have any ideas that will move the project further you need to share on our talkpage, that is the only way we can know editors that need assistance or want to assist the project. There are many experienced editors (many Nigerians) watching the talkpage and willing to help. Additionally, I also think there is a off-wiki COI concern here, which has also been raised by Mahveotm sometime ago. I do not buy the "if A was notable for this, then B should" as your main/only criteria for your selection of articles. You aren't creating articles for popular or prominent Nigerians, instead the subjects of your articles seem like subjects that would want to use Wikipedia to elevate their status. There are many popular and prominent Nigerians lacking WP articles, are are even listed on the project page, someone that is inexperienced but passionate should first start from there. You also added many so-called "social media experts" and "pr guru" who are un-notable and clearly not even popular to our project page. All these are suspicious, even from a Nigerian editor like myself! Few of your articles are genuinely notable, but the un-notability of the non-notable ones raises strong concerns for me.

I want to AGF, so I will ask you this since no one has done so, which of your created articles do you know personally, or have met individuals that know them personally? you don't need to have received money from them, you just have engaged in a conversation either with them or through intermediaries. Please come clean! HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

+1. This looks like UPE to me, straight up. Tchidi Chikere is sourced to crappy blogs and the like, including sources like this user forum. In any case this person should not get NPR. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• While I wouldn't necessarily agree with granting this user NPR rights, it troubles me that there seems to be an attitude (here and in other conversations that I've randomly observed) that it's a big deal. Like adminship, NPR is one of those things that is no big deal. We don't want people going "willy nilly" with the permission, but it's a permission that has quite a few eyes on it and mistakes are caught rather quickly and a page can be unreviewed just as quickly as reviewed. While being a sysop gives extra buttons that could cause headaches, NPR is easily corrected, if misapplied. In my opinion, any editor with at least 4K edits to the Main space and a clean block log ought to have NPR as an auto permission. But, I know that I am distinctly in the minority on that, so I'll just step back over into my little corner now and let this discussion continue. Additional commentary Submitted my comment too soon... To elaborate on why I wouldn't necessarily agree with granting NPR to this user, I say that given the information presented here, as a method of review. There are some valid concerns that have been raised. My thoughts above about NPR being an auto granted permission would also include a check and balance system of some sort. Strikerforce^Talk 21:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC) (expanded) Strikerforce^Talk 21:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Flint water crisis

2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has repeatedly accused me of bad faith on the above talk page, saying things like "Such behavior is manipulative and malicious", "I am against you trying to manipulate this page by concealing... the history of this Talk page" and that old issues were "resolved in your favor" and accusing me of owning the page. Someone please intervene. I consider this a personal attack. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin response) I took the time to read through the first archive. I can’t see anything I’d call a personal attack per se. There’s definitely a dispute about editing practices and archiving though and it’s getting a bit dicey. In this case, do you think you could offer a concession by asking the involved editors what article related subjects need to be discussed and refrain from archiving until consensus is reached? This would in part be a show of good will, and would also allow the issues to be re-aired. Even if the donkey is starting to hum a bit, it would probably do the article no harm to go over whatever’s being disputed. Edaham (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have a content dispute, he just thinks the talk page was archived too early and I disagree. He thinks anything less than a year old should stay on the talk page, even if the issue is long resolved. For some reason he think archiving equals "concealing" which is over course utter nonsense since they're still accessible and readable to everyone.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered ignoring it? --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Not if he's making false accusations against me. I have nothing but good faith but he's accusing me of bad faith and I find this extremely offensive.TomCat4680 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

There talk page shows that this isn't the first time they've been asked to tone it down. The anon seems to get fired up easily... usually over little things. Blackmane (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This IP does have a history of sealioning, does not AGF, and is deaf to consensus, and prone to personal attacks. (User:Dennis Bratland wrote that)

That's why I don't understand why he hasn't been indefinitely blocked. That kind of behavior obviously doesn't belong here and shouldn't be tolerated. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody? Why hasn't he been blocked yet? TomCat4680 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

On the archiving question, in April 2016, an editor increased the original archive time from 28 to 180 days. In January 2018, deceased it from 180 back to 30 days, then after IP 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 complained in April 2018, TomCat4680 increased it to 60 days. It's true that the guideline WP:TALKCOND says not to unarchive threads that are closed in order to prolong the discussion, but rather start a new discussion. But the resulting page was only 3.8 kb, nowhere close to the rule of thumb 75 kb in the guidelines. There's hardly a strong reason to feel compelled to archive anything. Why fight a battle with anyone who wants to delay archiving? Sooner or later the bot will archive it again. This edit summary, "illegal to un-archive talkpages. if you have a unresolved issue, start a new section." isn't correct. Ignoring a mere guideline, especially when the outcome isn't an unreasonably large talk page, isn't something to to go war over. Guidelines aren't laws.

Regardless of that, 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 isn't someone you can compromise with, and they will never be happy. In the end it's like talking to a wall, and it will turn ugly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case I'd definitely recommend just not responding to anything which seems overly fired up and only reply in threads which are actually related to article improvement. Edaham (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I said this on the talk page but it bears repeating: the IP is ignoring the second half of the archiving rule: The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page...has multiple resolved or stale discussions. He resurrected an old archived thread from April about the same issue. He did it back in April too, but those threads were much older, although with previously unresolved (now resolved) issues. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. Archiving seemed the sensible thing to do. I still recommend a subject change on the talk page. Can I on a side note mention that we share a birthday. I'll write more about that on your talk page, but I find it to be a nice coincidence and it is endearing that you mentioned people who share your birthday on your user-page. Edaham (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, I changed the minthreadsleft setting from 0 to 3. I prefer to leave something on the talk page, rather than archiving everything. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why stale threads whose issues were resolved by consensus need to remain forever. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Because they're going to remain forever either on the talkpage or in the archive. Leaving a couple of threads on the main talkpage is a useful mnemonic to remind you that discussion has been ongoing. Looking for the small numbers in the archive box doesn't have nearly the same effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It prevents old resolved issues from unnecessarily being resurrected though. That's what started this whole dispute in the first place, he cut and pasted from the archive onto the talk page because he felt like he "lost" the argument from five months ago, even though I resolved the points he brought up by adding information and sources to the article. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's more likely to cause old discussions to be started from scratch, if newcomers can't see what the most recent discussions were. The most recent talk archive is never my first stop when leaving a comment on talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well it should be. I hate it when old resolved issues are resurrected. Anybody who cares enough about the contents of an article and its talk page should add it to their watch list and log in as often as they can to see if there's been any recent discussions. Anyways, I increased the archive minimum to 90 days on top of your keep 3 threads adjustment, so hopefully it won't happen again. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Frayae making strange moves to/from draft space

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:Frayae has been making a lot of strange moves to/from draft space. I see three page moves from user space to draft space with strange titles: Draft:Kentik (conflict of interest draft), Draft:Martin Schäuble (version 2), Draft:Khaladdin Musayev (version 2). Also, the one that originally caught my eye, he moved Broadcast, Unknown-Unicast and Multicast traffic into mainspace, without it being reviewed, after I had raised concerns. But, what got me really curious is this is an account which was created three months ago, and has already racked up 7716 edits, which seems like an extraordinary rate. What's going on here? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Did you try asking them? Swarm ♠ 01:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming they'll answer here. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    • So we go straight to AN/I now? Holy Escalation Batman. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
      • They have replied at their talk page. I'm not sure about draft page naming conventions but their explanation looks perfectly OK to me. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I'll pick it up there. Not sure what got me so excited that I pulled the ANI trigger. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Vandalism of IP 73.108.140.237

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

---

The IP 73.108.140.237 does a lot of changes which I call vandalism e.g. [354], [355] or [356]. I didn't check all of his contributions, but I've seen him editing the same shit in Wikidata as well. He was already warned and blocked for 1 week. He should be blocked. -- MovieFex (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for six months. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have reverted all the number changing by this IP on wikipedia, this does look like vandalism by subtle number changes. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Hostility from EditorE

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

---

The user EditorE has lately made lots of inappropriate personal attacks towards Ss112, who tried to warn against edit warring. Regardless of what content dispute might be going on or who's right vs. wrong, these remarks are inexcusable and need admin intervention ASAP. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(Merged my comment to here) - Not sure what's going on between Ss112 but this and then this caught my attention, Both are obviously OTT and so a block may be in order?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I haven't gone over the top. Was just about to write here. EditorE has been telling me to "get fucked", "get raped", "fuck your family", tagging a bunch of users they don't like (@Iridescent: among them), screaming in edit summaries and at me on their talk page. All because I edited a number of articles after them a few days ago to adapt citations they added (per WP:CITEVAR). I reminded them of this several times, including on their talk page, where they said they will not use templates if the rest of an article does. I left it alone. Then earlier, I reverted them for telling me to "shut up" on Mac Miller discography because they partially undid one of my edits where I said EPs were not albums. I took issue with it again, then left a message on their talk where I was a bit snarky and said I "won't be shutting up", etc. then left it alone because it's quite clear they're not going to stop edit warring. Now they're just going haywire. Ss112 19:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ss112 my apologies this was quickly written and rushed - When I said "both were over the top" I was referring to EditorEs comment, Your comments/behaviour was absolutely fine, Apologies for the confusement, –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ian.thomson for indefinitely blocking EditorE. That was well-needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Blocked indefinitely. "Get fucked" is one thing, but some of the other stuff in there was the sort of stuff that, if one said at work, would (ideally) result in security escorting one out of the building with the contents of your desk being mailed to you later. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Ttwqs985

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 is a well know sockpuppet of Johan Archiles, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sockpuppets_of_JOHAN_ARCHILES. And THIS EDIT was really naughty. Please have a look at Special:CentralAuth/Ttwqs985, too. I don't know how to stop him, may be you've got a solution. -- MovieFex (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This user was indef blocked by Bbb23. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

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

DE and CIR issues with Bennyben1998

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.

---

Bennyben1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bennyben1998 has been engaging in disruptive editing for a few months now. This user repeatedly changes instances and descriptions of governments' adversarial behavior (e.g., spying and election interference) into "organized crime" or "mafia". This behavior extends to fictional settings and generic crime categories. Example edits: [357], [358], [359], [360], [361], [362], [363], [364], [365], [366]. See also Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Russian_Mafia_involvement.

This user claims ([367], [368]) that they "have Asperger's syndrome" and that "the whole "Russian government" thing upsets" them. They have asked that their edits no be undone as an "accommodation for [them]!".

This user has been warned repeatedly on their user talk page. They were also alerted to the WP:ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions. I think a block is warranted for this persistent disruptive editing and apparent lack of competence regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor indefinitely, making it clear that the block can be lifted if they commit to ending this disruptive behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

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

IP editor making personal attacks

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

---

I reverted 72.86.140.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for NPOV on Risë Stevens. IP proceeded to accuse me of vandalism and being "either an out of control bot or a nitwit" and call me an idiot. I tried to explain that I reverted them for NPOV and asked them to stop here, then they continued with their attacks. Requesting eyes on this situation. Aspening (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 24 hours, making it clear that these personal attacks are not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right, there's nothing moronic at all about insisting that it must be possible to explain why a famous star was famous and a star in perfectly NPOV language! Yikes. What a smug bunch, devoting yourself to the ceaseless struggle to prevent anybody with actual knowledge from improving the desiccated landscape of English-language wikipedia. Yes, the rumors are true, foreign language wikipedia articles are nothing like the shriveled English versions; they manage to incorporate vastly more and more meaningful information...presumably by keeping self-important editors such as yourselves in check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.145 (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

We are not talking about article content now. We are talking about your personal attacks on other editors, and now your block evasion. Your behavior is not acceptable here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Second IP blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

None of you nitwits ever really care about content. It's always about respecting your authoritah!!! You're so very, very impressive with your power to delete content willy nilly and, uh, to cheese off people who know more than you about the stuff you don't really care about, and other important powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.126 (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Emilyjohnson1986

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 been watching Emilyjohnson1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a while. I have just blocked due to failure to engage and persistent COI editing with, as far as I can see, no non-conflicted edits at all. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have endorsed the block and dropped my 2c on their talk page. I don't particularly like blocks like this, but sometimes we just have to do them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I thought you Brits "spend a penny" instead of "dropping 2c". EEng 22:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, good block. Here only to promote RNN, likely employee or contractor who is unwilling to engage and learn what we so here, and how. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with the comments above. Block was right and made after warnings. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Aye. Ironically, RNN is probably marginally notable, but I'm pretty sure if someone neutral wrote it, the results might not be what they want. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

WP: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.

---

• Ramrajshrestha1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Selfpromotion only. Does not seem to grasp the difference between Wikipedia and Facebook.
• Laxmikant Malvadkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ditto, though in Hindi. Not a single edit in article space. Kleuske (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Kleuske - Checking... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Kleuske - Both accounts have been blocked for persistent self-promotion or solely making edits in order to self-promote. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

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

IDHT and CIVIL issues with Shaddim

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.

---

• Shaddim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Hedgewars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This problem started a few days ago with Shaddim adding unreliable sources to the E.T. video game, one of which was pastebin. ([369]) Chrissymad left a warning on their talk page after reverting the edit, which they responded to here. In this response, they does not seem to understand WP:V or WP:RS, describing it later by saying "it is a very fuzzy quality, as even nature , which is considered very eliable, is ....sometimes non-reliable. Nothing is reluable, we have to manage here unteliabilty". ([370]) Their lack of understanding is not against guidelines per se, but their refusal to discuss it and their incivility in is. They said: "What you are talking about is "relibality" which is a fuzzy quality which is rquired for controversial topics or articles about persons." Chrissymad reviewed their draft, Draft:Hedgewars, which is a non-notable promotional linkspam, and rejected it at AfC. They confronted her at her talk page, and was uncivil in doing so, referring to her actions as "bullshit authoritarian grandeur" and "utter garbage." Soon after, there was a dispute on N+ regarding the mention of the game's inclusion in 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die. I personally think that a mention is warranted, (I did revert once, but changed my thoughts on it's inclusion) but some users did not, and rather than discussing on the talk page, Shaddim thought it necessary to but up against 3RR and revert three experienced editors. After they completed their final revert, they discussed it here, saying "stop hounding me and being involved needlessly in my topics." Evidently, they do not understand the purpose of Wikipedia; they are not their topics, they are everyone's topics. They also act as though discussing content in articles is a personal attack against them, and feels it necessary to strongly defend their actions rather than engage in civil discourse about those actions. (WP:WIN might shed light on this) A longer discussion ensued at this page over the reliability of pastebin, in which Shaddim responded to one of Chrissymad's comments saying "stop being a bureaucratic prick" after she made the argument that pastebin is unreliable and verifiable. In direct response to that, zchrykng left a warning on Shaddim's talk page cautioning personal attacks, where he threatened to bring up a "formal complaint" against Chrissymad. This brings me here, where I felt it necessary to mention this to the larger administrative community. I'll also note that the articles and edits they make seem to me to border on WP:TE. Vermont (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Their behavior is quite concerning. They do seem to be completely unwilling to understand that WP:RS requires published and journalistic sourcing be provided to support claims. If a source is challenged and it doesn't meet WP:RS, then the content must be removed. Verifiability is a key tenet of Wikipedia. In addition, WP:OR states that a synthesis of sources is explicitly not allowed, such as the 42 sources (links to a series of GNA download pages) used on the Hedgewars draft to try and support claims of popularity. Download counters are highly unreliable and easy to manipulate. Trying to claim a pastebin of source code by an anonymous uploader (on the E.T. game article) is a reliable source is also unbelievable. If they cannot be instructed on what a reliable source is and learn to collaborate well with others, then perhaps a block is needed. Waggie (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"Verifiability is a key tenet of Wikipedia" -> I'm fully behind that. Even so strongly that I see great value in adding primary sources when other authors remove them afterswars, citing RS, which is from my perspective non-sensical. Our core goal is verfiablity, a secondary goal is the "strife for more reliable sources". The non-existence and the managing of less relible sources (by counter balancing, adding more sources, careful-defensive formulations) is our work. Shaddim (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support block – This user's distinct distaste for the application of the reliable sources policy on "non-controversial" articles, as noted by the essay on their user page, is admirable, but is entirely inconsistent with what we're trying to do as a project. Their IDHT approach to the edit warring policy is not tenable. They need to seek alternative outlets. TheDragonFire (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse block - they're trying to contribute to Wikipedia, bless them, but it's really not working out at all well for them. They're now deliberately choosing to ignore core policies and to edit according to their own user page essay, which just doesn't work. Nick (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• A concern Shaddim has been editing since 2011. I know I've seen the name come up on various VG articles, but never remember any problems like this. Are we possibly looking at a compromised account? --Masem (t) 17:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for noticing my productive work history, I noticed your one too and I think we never came in conflict. But no, the recent incidents were me, but my perspective on them is different then here presented.Shaddim (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

  Masem, Probably not, as this from two years ago is consistent with what's happening now. Although, there does seem to be a change in civility from then to now, but the spelling errors remain the same. Vermont (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  Just want to throw that out there. What we're seeing is not acceptable, but more curious as to the why. --Masem (t) 18:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  I don't know how you've missed the behavior Shaddim exhibits when we start talking about reliability. I can think of a fingerful of occasions where he was helpful; otherwise, he has tended not to get the point of our sourcing policies and guidelines. Deliberately, from what I can tell. I don't know about a block, but he has been (calmly) disruptive in multiple discussions due to the I didn't hear that mentality. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I apologize form ...ehh...for my many spelling errors. ;) Shaddim (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support block - I’ve had lengthy discussions on source reliability at various AFD and merger discussions. He’s definitely had a WP:IDHT/I don’t care type of attitude about source reliability in the past, so if it still hasn’t improved, a block is probably warranted at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm very focussed on sourcing, verfiability is the one core quality which brought me to contribute and valuing WP. I'm very concerned about "strifing for more reliable sources". But, I reject the accusation of OR, I source my stuff very fine grained and for instance counting is not OR. Our disagreement is about what kind if source can act as "reliable enough" source for which purpose: technicla facts, notability etc. this is normal policy disagreement inside the five pillars.Shaddim (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• This situation has been a long time coming. As stated above by others and myself, Shaddim does not want to edit in accordance with our content PAG, especially our expectations regarding no original research and verifiability and especially our perference in most cases for secondary sources, in general. Given that, a more targeted kind of editing restriction may help to focus his efforts and avoid a block now and/or an indefinite block at some point in the future. My suggestion: "When editing about video game topics, Shaddim may use only those sources indicated as reliable on WP:VG/S. When adding content, he must provide a detailed, inline citation to a source listed there." Basically, provide him the list of works from which he may draw facts about any particular topic in the video game sphere (where he edits most, from what I have observed). --Izno (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I’d support this as well. Either/both I support, whatever garners consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • this is no way to treat an independent person and fellow author. You try to give the impression that it is very clear what are reliable sources, yet, the portals & authors wastes enormous valuable time in bickering about if a source is reliable enough or was at some point reliable or lost reliablity lately: this topic is highly fluid, controversial and not at all cut in stone. My interpretation is, wikipedia is about managing unreliability, on base of more or less reliable information sources. Trying to externalize this work by insisting there are absolute reliable source which we can blindly trust misses the point of our work. Shaddim (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Izno's idea is a fairly common approach to handling editors who don't understand source reliability. If you can't make the distinction yourself, rely on the list of sources that are already non-controversially and widely classified as reliable or unreliable. It wouldn't necessarily be for forever, just until you show that you understand Wikipedia's views on source reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I have some sympathy for an opinion which is "RS are not cut and dry". However, your behavior and statements suggests that you do not care about our other core content policies such as no original research. Yes, it is original research to use primary sources. We allow such use in a limited fashion for basic details. But your editing behavior more often than not is: "I will use primary sources regardless of any other concerns voiced by anyone else that it is inappropriate." Which is not okay and which is why I suggested "here is a list of reliable sources which will set you on the path to writing about what needs to be written". If you can not or will not change your attitude on this point, then this section at ANI makes it look like you will be blocked for some indeterminate period. --Izno (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I do care about the OR policy, I see myself staying away from OR but sourcing my content extensively. Also, I don't apply primary sources indiscriminately: I use them to prove exstience or technical facts (only) and make these verfiable for readers. Like linking to github source repositories. I understand the great requirement for reliable secondary/tertiary sources for strong general statements like "X started war Y" : normally I don't use such language or introduce such text parts or work in such controversial topics. About "primary source usage is in general OR": if we cite John Carmarck opinion as exceptional specialist on something by linking to some selfpublished text from him, I can't see the OR here. also, counting is not or Shaddim (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Answer: hi, as this is about me I think it is appropriate to answer. First, I'm well aware of the reliability criteria and even more important I'm aware of their motivation, history and intend. An the intend and sensible implementation of reliability and when it it is sensible and required, seems to be lost on the community. Some people seems to be surprised that I argue primary sources can be reliable. This is obviously true. An article of an author is an reliable information about its opinion or the existence of the article. While on the other hand, a Nature article, can be considered among the the most reliable sources for scientific facts (but not absolute reliable). Which illustrates that reliability (and its requirements) are differentin dependence of context and for the most important case ("is this a nature science fact/true") a source can be only more reliable but never absolute reliable (unlike trivial facts like, "did he said that?", "exist this text"). That this details seems nowadays lost is a pity and problem for wikipedia, but well. I credit it to the win of deletionist faction, the practical non-existing inclusionst and new author inflow anymore. From this perspective I understand that it is comfortable to block an uncomfortable nuanced interpretation of sourcing and RS which is not shared and implemented the majority of authors here, and therefore take the easy route and block me.

Second, I would like to formally complain about chrissymad about hounding and unprofessional behaviour, I propose her for a block. After the first disagreement I went in contact with her on her talk page to discuss the topic. After some sentences and blunt accusations ("you don't know RS") she ended unlaterally the discussion whioh I consider rude and unacceptable, as this prevents and blocks any resolution possibility. Second, as kind of revenge she browsed my history and rejected in an act of revenge the well worked out draft in <2min which is ridicoulous and can only mean that this was at best skimming over the text. Her core argument was: it was deleted before multiple so it is unlikely now primetime. Which is infinite shallow and damaging for the project, such a behaviour. We struggle with keeping authors and attracting new ones, how dismotivating would be such a "review" for a new author who invested days or weeks in a draft? I expect an in-detail response per source and conclusion about the notability and quality and structure of an article not such arrogant horsesh*t. This persons ego seems way above anything else, and has the potential for damaging the project I propose here for a block. (About the articles notability, I want to start a discussion with the VG portable as million of downloads indicate indeed notability & this case seems currently not properly addressed in the guidlines.)Shaddim (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Summary / mission statement: My core concern and core guideline for my WP work was and are the five pillars (as some indicated I should work somewhere else as I'm outside these: these notation I reject). Verifiability of all claims is for me the core quality beside balanced presentation and objective perspective, which brought me to joining. "Strifing for reliable sources" is a quality I sign on and apply in my edits, acknowledging the need for different quality of sources for varying strengthes of statements. In case of question I weaken the statements and search more and better sources. My articles and edits are most of the time well and fine grained sourced; as example of an article which fullfils the requirments of the 5 pillars very well I offer the in weeks researched and sourced Draft:Hedgewars draft. I consider this a well sourced, quite balanced and neutral article of good quality; everything is backed by sources. There are secondary reliable sources of notable magazines like FAZ and C't, there is media reception over years and usage in the millions by users, therefore the assumption of notability is not misplaced. This idea I think deservres at least a proper review. I will apologize for confrontional, uncivil language in reaction to reverts, rejection and content destruction in the last time. But I will not apologize for being enraged about too light handed dismissive content removal, overly fast and unfounded and unresearched and unexplained rejection of good sourced content for wikipedia by Chrissmad. I believe content creator deserve especially respect and due time for investing their time in this project: creation is hard, time consuming & work intensive; rejection and deletion is easy and fast and should applied more carefully. 12:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"...very well I offer the in weeks researched and sourced Draft:Hedgewars draft." You shouldn't be doing any researching, and your draft is no where near mainspace-ready. The vast majority of the sources are primary, few of them are reliable, there's quite a bit of linkspam of unreliable links (refs 46-87 are all unverifiable, easily manipulatable download statistics) and it quite simply doesn't show that it is notable. Vermont (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

thanks for being the first one taking a closer look. Webarchive and archive.is and the download webpages are independent and not easy manipulateable, someone would have to hack them. I think this is good enough for showing 100.000 to millions of downloads + we have the game inclusion on coverdisks with circulations in 100.000s too. Such numbers are in my book a indication of notability (but I would like to bring this to VG portal for a discussion too). An, as you noticed there ARE independent reliable sources over years and for many countries. Why they are not good enough? Shaddim (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Shaddim - Can you please provide diff links of the edits in question that support your accusations against Chrissymad for incivility, hounding, and her "ending the discussion unilaterally"? Accusations like these are serious, and you must provide evidence via diff links to support such accusations when you make them. Failing to do so is both uncivil and disruptive - please provide them here. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, please remain civil and do not add comments such as, "I expect an in-detail response per source and conclusion about the notability and quality and structure of an article not such arrogant horsesh*t". You were just recently warned for making uncivil comments two days ago when you added this comment to Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) calling Chrissymad "a bureaucratic prick". Any further comments like this will result in being blocked for making personal attacks toward other editors. I'll await your response with the evidence I'm asking for... thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"Please leave my discussion page now" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chrissymad&diff=858354269&oldid=858354072 Shaddim (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

hounding: "14:54, 6 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+626)‎ . . Draft:Hedgewars ‎ (Rejecting submission: n - Topic is not notable (AFCH 0.9)) 14:48, 6 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,223)‎ . . User talk:Shaddim ‎ (General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game). (TW))" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Chrissymad&offset=20180906153244&target=Chrissymad 6min inbetween to shut the draft down, which was unrelated to previous discussion. She then even followed me on anther again unrelated discussion about N+ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:N%2B&diff=prev&oldid=858364528 Shaddim (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Shaddim - Okay, lets get the series of events straight here... Chrissymad declined your submission of Draft:Hedgewars, and you left uncivil messages on her user talk page in retaliation to her decline and with the first message you left here stating, "wont accept your singular.uninfomed (sic) opinion". Your responses on her user talk page include this one where you stated, "Your review and nuanced understanding of rs is the only thing here which is utter garbage" - hence, I see her request asking you to stop editing her user talk page as both unsurprising and a reasonable way of dealing with your personal attacks and unacceptable conduct there. Chrissymad is perfectly allowed to ask you not to edit her user talk page anymore, and unless there is a legitimate circumstance that requires you to do so (i.e. discussion notifications, etc.), users are expected to comply and honor such requests.

I also don't see Chrissymad's decline of your draft page as unreasonable either. After your repeated uncivil messages and personal attacks toward Chrissymad and in retaliation to the decline she made on that draft, what do you expect her do to? She tried explaining her reason for declining your edit, you were uncivil. So she told you to leave her alone. What part of Chrissymad's conduct in comparison to yours is unprofessional and problematic, and warrants a block? If anything, you are the one who was acting uncivil and unprofessional. If had to choose between blocking you or Chrissymad (in a hypothetical "what if" game), who do you think has acted more uncivilly and unprofessionally - you or her? Who do you think should or would be blocked? Who do you think most editors would choose if they had to pick?

To conclude, I see no conduct by Chrissymad that warrants a further look or even a consideration of action against her. Your accusations have no merrit and are in response to your uncivil conduct toward her, not the other way around. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support block; while I previously had no opinion on this, seeing the subject's defense of their actions convinced me quite quickly that there is little to be gained by extending rope in this instance. Icarosaurvus (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• what aspect convinced you? Shaddim (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Probably the long, angry wall of text you wrote as a response above? FYI, badgering every single response isn't going to help things like this... Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• well, this might be true and I'm aware that the form in which I present my case might quite suboptimal for the result. But on the other hand

• Support block: After their response to my warning I was considering filing a report myself but was beat to the punch. Very much WP:IDHT regarding RS, and unrepentant about the personal attacks. Also can’t seem to distinguish between helpful feedback and personal attacks. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 11:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support block or some other restriction I was on the fence when I first read this last night. This incident is exactly like every interaction I've ever had with Shaddim, almost always in the space of open software games of which he holds to an advocacy position. The response here show a doubling down on the idea that primary sources are fine for everything, and a refusal to understand how they factor into WP:OR and WP:GNG. For another example, see RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 from August 2017. The entire talk page is Shaddim pushing these positions against a general consensus. -- ferret (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you, I was trying to remember some similar instances to the issue at hand here, as there's been a number of them over the years. This was one of them. The talk page shows evidence of all sorts of poor ideas related to unreliable sources and OR, and only stopped because of a complete consensus against his stances. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• "The response here show a doubling down on the idea that primary sources are fine for everything" -> I never, ever said that or applied that. I argued repeatedly for a nuanced need and application of sources, technical, trivial facts can and should be backed by primary sources ("it exist"). More trivial stuff does not need even sources overall (see "the sky is blue"). Stronger statements like "best strategy game ever" need obviously stronger sources, so my position is EXCATLY as it is described in our polcies and the five pillars. Shaddim (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point that several of us have made: if it's trivial and doesn't need to be sourced, it doesn't need to be in an article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

No one made this point until now and this is so broadly argued that it hardly a discussion point. If you meant specifically the hedgwars draft: The fine grained argumentation with primary sources for hundredthousands to millions downloads is useful as it shows real-world impact and by that notability & satisfy our primary goal of verfiabilty. Shaddim (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how better to explain what I already have, so I'm not going to engage on this matter any longer unless asked by a third party. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support block or topic ban from editing any gaming related articles in mainspace directly, broadly construed. I apologize for the delay in my response and I have several things I'd like to address when I'm not mobile (it's a PITA to respond on a phone.) But I never inferred or attacked Shaddim, I said the sources he was trying to use were utter garbage and I stand by that statement. Pastebin is never an acceptable source, I would put it on the same level as personal knowledge of any given subject. Aside from that, there was no hounding or contrib stalking. Shaddim triggered COIBot in the feed and that's why I looked to begin with and considering the great backlog at AFC when I saw there was an unreviewed draft, I did a review just like I would do for anything else: evaluating sources. I am not going to give a breakdown of every source because that's a massive time sink when it's obvious that consensus would agree with my decline but I'll note this: there are 108 sources. 108. 41 of those sources are for one single sentence. Nearly every single source is a "stat" page, build link or a link to their website in any number of languages, which goes to another point that I think a topic ban would cover and that's Shaddim's inclusion of trivial content. No one is arguing that a primary source can't be used but a primary source does not establish notability based on personal research and asserting that x number of downloads = notable. I took a quick look at Shaddim's edits once he refuted the pastebin issue and found a long history of this behavior. I don't know if it's willful ignorance or just an inability to understand what types of sources and content are required, but it's become a massive time sink, in my opinion, especially since this conversation continues yearly. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)I've amended my proposal of a TB to a full out block as I can see no situation at this point where this editor's presence will be conducive to a collaborative encyclopedic environment, as evidenced by their monumental failure to understand the basic core of Wikipedia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• and I stand by the statement that your fast-shot response behaviour, searching my history and shooting down with little to zero research a draft and being involved in discussion you have no stake in is harmful for the project and the ignitor of this incidence which blocks me and wastes the time other constrcutive editors. But, I will apologize for my language, this was unneeded. Shaddim (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Shaddim, to be frank, I could care less about your incivility toward me. What I find problematic is the massive time sink you've created by arguing against literally every editor here and every policy and guideline regarding sourcing to suit your own thoughts. I have been nothing but civil to you and I have thoroughly explained (as have dozens of others at this point) every revert I have made, every decline with regard to your edits and you're still repeating yourself. Arguing the reliability of pastebin for example is like arguing that 2+2 is 53. It's not. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I also care most about the harmful effect your unconsidrate activity will have on wikipedia. About pastebin as primary source, I already answered here 2 times I think. Shaddim (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• PS: if you feel you don't have the time to do the work required for a proper review of an draft: don't come to premature, ill advised decisions then, take your time or drop out. Shaddim (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Moved Shaddim's comment to the end to preserve threading since it separated replies from the original message. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

There was nothing premature about my review and am reversing my decision to not engage as it's clear you're not here to work collaboratively or in any encyclopedic manner. I don't know why you've decided that I'm the big bad guy here when literally multiple other editors have flat out told you that you are wrong and my review was perfectly in line with consensus. See: Zchrykng, waggie, Vermont, TheDragonFire and this is just in regard to the draft and your edits regarding pastebin. There's also the many times your editing has been called into question prior to this: a friendly warning and discussion from NinjaRobotPirate, This thread about sources, a warning about disruptive editing, sources and consensus by SnowFire,this long discussion about your behavior and lack of understanding basic principles (sourcing) of Wikipedia., this thread where you've decided that consensus doesn't matter about reliability, this thread about your editing ideologies, and this prophetic thread in which it was explained to you ad nauseum that you can't just make up consensus. And lest we forget, your apparent habitual breaking of WP:CIV and WP:NPA: like here at James' talk page where you accused him of tool abuse and called him an asshead, or here on the same page where you accused him of misuse and name called. Should I continue? The fact that we've literally spent days debating something as ridiculous as whether or not Pastebin is reliable or a draft with 108 references to ridiculous sources is nothing more than a time sink and disruptive editing. tl;dr Shaddim's editing ideology and inability to grasp WP:RS, WP:V and inability to collaborate is incompatible with an encyclopedia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

your review was all about premature: 6min fastshot, no proper explanation. That you NOW do your homework does not change that. I would have accepted a rejection with a proper review & explanation. Shaddim (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

also, stop trying to misrepresnt my position: as I layed out above clearly and convincingly, I'm aware about the importance of sourcing in WP. I'm a major contributor to sources in articles and I have deeply contemplated about the need and strenghtes of varying quality of sources. Shaddim (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Shaddim, After checking through the draft and it’s sources, I came to the same conclusion as Chrissymad. It’s non-notable linkspam hugging the border of WP:OR. Vermont (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

All fine and dandy, but van you give me details (there ARE several foreign language RS sources)? Bordering OR means it is not OR: counting is not OR. Million of downloads and being top ten at MacStore games means something. 15:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

RS material:

• Joel Lee (August 14, 2017). "20 Best Open Source Video Games". MakeUseOf. "8. Hedgewars - Hedgewars is an open source clone of Worms — but it’s also so much more than that. It has taken the idea of a turn-based strategic artillery game and expanded it in all kinds of directions, especially when it comes to the weapons available in the game. In addition to single-player missions and multiplayer mayhem, Hedgewars provides all kinds of customization: to your hedgehog, to game modes, and to game assets (through community-made content packs)." (https://www.makeuseof.com/about/ , article by the Editor in Chief)
• "Hedgewars PC - Open-source'owy klon Worms, czerpiący pełnymi garściami z tej utytułowanej, komercyjnej serii. Program powstał dzięki systemowi dotacji od zainteresowanych graczy". Gry Online (in Polish). March 24, 2006. (Polsih news webpage)
• Richard Smedley (May 2008). "HotPicks". Linux Format (105): 73. (paper magazine)
• Sebastian Dziallas (2009). "Strategiespiele - Hedgewars". C't (in German) (24): 138. (major German computer magazine)
• Adam Saleh (8 November 2010). "Hedgewars: Linuxový remake hry Worms Armageddon - Spomínate na rok 1999, keď známi vývojári z Team 17 priniesli šialenstvo Armageddonu v podaní malých ružových červov? Ak vám tieto časy chýbajú, nemusíte ďalej váhať a stiahnite si Hedgewars" (in Czech). linuxexpres.cz. (Czech linux web magazine, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcs.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLinuxEXPRES&edit-text=&act=url)
• Hedgewars 0.9.13 - Gelungener Klon des Spiele-Klassikers Worms Hedgewars" (in German). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2010-05-03. Archived from the original on 2010-11-03. "Das kostenlose Hedgewars ist eines jener Computerspiele, das trotz eines an sich simplen Konzepts eine große Suchtgefahr mitbringt. Die Grafiken und Landschaften sind liebevoll und abwechslungsreich gestaltet." (major German newspaper)
• Filippo Moriggia (2008-11-17). "Download del giorno: Hedgewars". PC Professionale (in Italian). (Italian PC Professionale Magazine) Shaddim (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support block: "...I see great value in adding primary sources when other authors remove them afterswars, citing RS, which is from my perspective non-sensical. Our core goal is verfiablity, a secondary goal is the "strife for more reliable sources". The non-existence and the managing of less relible sources (by counter balancing, adding more sources, careful-defensive formulations) is our work." The repeated incivility, plus a clear lack of understanding of how primary sources fail WP:V and that verifiability is established by the WP:RS has convinced me Shaddim simply doesn't get it, and unfortunately may never. This has been explained repeatedly, in many different ways. They seem to not understand that download statistics are easily inflatable, even by simply starting downloads repeatedly (nevermind using bots or other methods to manipulate these numbers), and that from a Wikipedia perspective as a tertiary source primary sources simply are not reliable or verifiable when it comes to anything potentially promotional. Waggie (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• John Carmarcks (confirmed) twitter account (primary source) is an reliable source on his opinion. Verfiablity achieved. Case closed. Shaddim (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• about bots and manipulating downlaod numbers, this is the first time this is mentioned. One could argue like that for these download counters, but I would argue no one had something to win by manipulating it (years ago). Indeed we have manage these uncertainties somehow at WP: I think the most important line of defense is defensive, careful language & usage ("as download counters indicate...") + verfiability by the reader to make up their own mind on this. But this also true for the so called "reliable" secondary sources, who were wrong reportedly wrong before and can were manipulated. Shaddim (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• You're continue to fail to see the core issue here. At best, you can use a primary source to say "X number of downloads have been made from site y". That is all. Straight up what the primary source states. You cannot use it say "It is popular" or "It is widely downloaded" or any other such statement. You cannot "prove" popularity or notability from a download counter. Anything more than an exact statement of what the primary source indicates is WP:OR. -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First time they've been mentioned in this thread? I mentioned them at the top of this thread, as has Vermont mid-way through. A primary source can be used to verify statements made by the subject, meaning that we can quote someone as saying something in particular, but that is not useful for establishing notability, nor is it useful for verifying any fact except something relatively trivial like their birth date, location of residence, or their parents names. And to add what Ferret says, you cannot use download counters from software site archive pages to calculate totals using WP:OR. Waggie (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

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