Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive939

LogicalGenius3 citing a Holocaust denial blog and trying to change WP:RS to support it

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

---

Logicalgenius3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LogicalGenius3 has tried to cite something on a Holocaust denial blog to support claims of his. When this failed, he tried to alter WP:Identifying reliable sources supposedly on (nonsensical) grammar grounds, but really (by his own admission) to let him add primary source based original research (...which would somehow make it OK to cite primary sources on that Holocaust denial blog). He has responded to multiple seasoned editors' explanations for why we don't do this with edit warring, filibusters that somehow remind me of Dianetics lessons, and accusations of bad faith and (ironically) ownership.

We don't need someone who would make these kinds of blunders editing articles relating to the Holocaust, nor does he need to be making changes to guidelines and policies. At a minimum, he needs a topic ban from those two areas. I've been given the impression that his belief in the superiority of his own understanding of English and logic has caused trouble in other articles, but have not investigated. If his behavior in the topics I have mentioned is reflective on his conduct as a whole, then WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR seem to terminally apply.

As it is, I've had the block menu open in another tab ever since I found out that one of his motivations was citing a Holocaust denial blog (amazed we don't have discretionary sanctions on that topic), but since he is making edits in other areas I figured I should ask for the community's assessment. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What? But Ian ... there isn't a rise in racism, fascism and antisemitism on English Wikipedia. You must just be imagining this.

Seriously, how often does he make edits that aren't related Jews or Nazis? I'm not seeing a lot. There are definitely some, but are they worth it? His favourite page is Frédéric Chopin, put all he did was edit-war to keep the word "French" in the lead. Next is Albert Einstein, a Jew who fled the Nazis. Next is Technical University of Berlin, alma mater of various Nazis, and his edits were specifically to the notable alumni list's descriptions of them. He made several minor tweaks to Prussian Academy of Arts -- the topic seems innocuous, but he edit-warred and cited de.wiki, so it's not an indication that he's a valuable contributor to the project either. Next Auschwitz concentration camp. Next Battle of Stalingrad. Next Focke-Wulf Fw 190, which is related to the Third Reich but relatively innocuous, but his edits also were not substantial. Next Bauakademie -- no problem, but nothing to write home about anyway. Next 1996 Mount Everest disaster -- no problem, but again nothing substantial. Next Theresienstadt concentration camp. Next Rudolf Höss. Next Otto Wächter. I mean, there is some evidence that if we applied a broad TBAN he might become a good WP:GNOME and correct some formatting problems or spelling errors, but is it even worth it? I'm not seeing why his "edits in other areas" would make you think twice about just blocking him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you find specific edits that would raise red flags if not in the light of the original complaint? And I've never said denied that there hasn't been a rise in fascists on Wikipedia -- in the case you link to, I just did not see any explicit evidence that couldn't be attributed to coincidence (replace "Jewish" and "German" with any other labels and it's suddenly a very different picture, as TU-nor explained). While I'm all for blocking neo-Nazis, white supremacists, fascists, and their ilk and firmly believe AGF is not a suicide pact, we still need to have better standards than HUAC. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I've never said denied that there hasn't been a rise in fascists on Wikipedia Far too many negatives, and it's 6 a.m. here so I literally can't wrap my head around it. Basically I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was saying that when I last pointed out that there seems to be an unusually large number of ANI threads about Holocaust deniers, Nazi dog-whistles, and people denying that white supremacists were white supremacists, and so, people basically replied with "no", and then since then the rate has jumped up again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think the guy's perfectly competent, Ian, and well on his way to extended-confirmed, which I think is his goal with these insubstantial edits. But he is NOTHERE, and I'd have no objection if you used the block button. Katie^talk 12:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, done. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Good decision, block supported. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• I thank Ian for bringing this obvious disruption to an end and for letting me know about this report. I was the one who initially brought the connection between the denialist holohoax website and his tendentious attempt to add TRUTH into the RS guideline. His last reply taunts me for making that connection. This guy is a very ambitious, committed, and cocky denialist to the point of trolling. Definitely a clear WP:NOTHERE case. Dr. K. 14:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Ian.thomson did a good job noticing this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone who is not aware that the Institute for Historical Review is a holocaust denial group has no business editing articles on the holocaust. Good block. RolandR (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I just looked through this user's arguments out of a sense of morbid curiosity and had no difficulty identifying numerous, extremely obvious logical flaws in them, despite the editor's name and penchant for referring to formal logic. Apologies if I seem to be 'piling on', but I felt the need to point this out, as this fact helps to undermine any block appeal that relies upon our assumption of good faith on their part. I don't believe anyone who is that ignorant of logic, yet claims to be that interested in logic can be honestly said to be arguing in good faith, albeit with poor goals and choice of words. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I was tempted to add "logic in username" to WP:Bingo, or at least modify "truth in username" to "truth or logic in username." That was part of the reason I asked here before blocking: I couldn't tell if LogicalGenius3's Dianetics-esque illustration of the Dunning–Kruger effect was just something that required a topic ban to get a gnome out of, or proof that my twitchy trigger finger was right. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I think "truth or logic in username" would be a wonderful addition. I haven't had much luck editing alongside anyone with either word in their username. Also I think a block was the right call. Whether this is an extreme WP:CIR case, or a case of some dedicated trolling, (and I suspect we will never know which), there is simply no place for them here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: We're done, they're blocked, let's close this out. Anyone who knows the coding for the purple box, care to do it, please? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 17:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Highly disruptive IPs - 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.

---

Quickly pinging Emir of Wikipedia and Smartyllama as they are being affected by this as well. There's a problem IP that has been constantly pinging us all over the place with the sole intention to disrupt. There is actually a particularly long story here, but, I'd rather not give you a 10k byte+ message to try to deal with it. Instead I'll just give a quick summary explanation and some links. For me this started around a week ago after I intervened in a discussion between said IP and Emir that was taking place at Emir's talk page. It took about a full week to get that discussion to shut off; the extremely long and PA ridden discussion is here. If you skim through it you'll notice that the IP has changed numerous times, some key IPs involved here are;

• 2607:fb90:1e07:82d1:0:e:1943:9201 (Most recent)
• 2607:FB90:1E03:77F9:0:47:78FC:3501
• 2607:fb90:1e0a:4ee6:0:30:f809:8501
• 2607:fb90:1e08:b906:0:47:7974:4001

Right now Emir is punching through each of the IP's comments and reverting them. This IP has made no effort to cease their disruption for more than a week. I'm not sure how range blocks work, but, it seems to me that in this case there would be a whole heap of collateral damage. All-in-all, there are a few WP:NOTHERE blocks that I think should be enacted. It would at least kill this disruption for the moment being. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Disruption logs; Emir's talk page, Aga Khan, Template talk:Twelvers, Zaidiyyah, Alawites and my own talk page. I think I counted around 30 disruptive repetitive pinging edits by the IP. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • As an additional heads up - I have intentionally neglected to inform the IP of this discussion as I believe that they will attempt to bring the disruption here. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I support this decision to neglect the information of the IP. The IP has been disruptive for around I month I think now, and in this time they have shown no respect or understanding of the protocols of Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I found some other IP's. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• 2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01
• 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01
• Peter Andrew Nolan (Possible account name)

• (Edit Conflict) See also This discussion, where he basically admits he deliberately disrupted the Doc Love article, adding uncited material in violation of WP:BLP (all of which was quickly reverted by myself, Emir, or others) and pretended to be a supporter of Doc Love in an effort to get the page deleted. The page ultimately was deleted not because of the poor quality but because Doc Love was deemed to fail WP:GNG. Which the IP also doesn't seem to understand, given he's apparently taken credit for the article being deleted. And it's a core part of the Wikipedia process that AFD is not cleanup so if Doc Love were notable, his tactics wouldn't have worked and would continue to disrupt Wikipedia once the article was kept. Smartyllama (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• The IP is now in a massive edit war with Emir on his (Emir's) talk page. Emir is not in violation of 3RR because one of the exceptions is reverting edits in your own userspace, but the IP certainly is. And he was banned for 3RR violations on Doc Love earlier. Smartyllama (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Another notable example of edit warring is on the page of his alleged grandfather Aleksandr Kamensky. Fortunately this page has now been protected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Non privacy related edit deletion request

(A related request about the same IP bunny).

• I support action against this range. I keep seeing the most hellacious, overt trolling on User Talk:Emir of Wikipedia ... richi (hello) 14:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not here for good purposes. Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This is why we can't have nice things, Anyway clearly NOTHERE. –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It's sort of died down, but, I'm still getting regular pings from the IP as they re-instate deleted comments on my userpage. I appreciate that Emir is reverting these additions as they tend to happen while I am asleep.[1] Mr rnddude (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblocked 2607:fb90:1e00::/44 for one month. Katie^talk 12:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks for the help. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Mztourist's disruptive editing and intention to conduct 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.

---

Mztourist (talk · contribs) has consistently reverted my editing on Operation Castor without any discussion on talk page.[2] He has unhesitatingly showed off his intention to wage edit warring. Please do something to stop this. Dino nam (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is laughable. Dino nam (talk · contribs) and his IP sock 113.190.238.202 (talk · contribs) unilaterally and without prior discussion changed the outcome of Operation Castor from "French Union victory" to "Successful French establishment of the Dien Bien Phu outpost". This is part of Dino nam's relentless POV pushing and unwillingness to accept that the Viet Minh/Vietcong/North Vietnamese were ever defeated. This follows a recent bout of edit warring on the Battle of Khe Sanh page where Dino nam also changed the outcome against consensus, I reported him/her for edit-warring but apparently unless you have 3RR'ed that complaint has no weight (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive329#User:Dino nam reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)) and for use of IP socks, but apparently the privacy of the socker is more important than the fact that they're socking (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive). This is a classic case of complaining about ones own behavior and deserving of a WP:boomerang. Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Before talking about user:Mztourist again, I should say that both of the complaints he made against me mentioned above have already been turned down, so it's ridiculous to repeat them again; in fact mentioning about them may arguably constitute a violation of the WP:NPA policy. I suggest you should rather concentrate on Mztourist's action, as he seem to have no intention to stop his disruptive editing.[3] Dino nam (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

They are relevant because you are continuing with exactly the same behavior, edit-warring and IP socking. Mztourist (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Wtshymanski continuing to refuse to abide by his edit restriction

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

---

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is currently under the following edit restriction

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · logs) is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address. This includes not only a direct reversion of an edit (using the "undo" button) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of an article.

Wtshymanski has consistently refused to abide by the restriction having now been blocked twice for violating the restriction (in April and June 2016). Wtshymanski has demonstrated once again that he has no intention of abiding by it by violating his editing restriction yet agian

Good faith edit made by an IP editor here

Wtshymanski has reverted it here and disguised it by not using the word 'revert' (or any avariation) in the edit summary.

85.255.234.176 (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I assume that you, 85.255.234.176, are the same person as the IP user who made that edit [4]. If that is the case, you are coming here with unclean hands, and your complaint will therefore be thrown out without action. That IP edit was so obviously unconstructive (calling the only two links in an article "overlinking" when they served as the primary defining features for the geographical location of a building, is plainly absurd!) that I find it very hard indeed to imagine any reason an obviously wiki-experienced IP editor could have made it except with the purpose of deliberately provoking Wtshymanski into reverting it. What that IP was doing was borderline vandalism, and what this IP here is doing is done in utterly bad faith. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You assume wrong. I was involved (but not the original complainant) in the original ANI complaint. I have been keeping a watch on proceedings since. I never said that the IP's edit was not unquestionable, but it does appear to be a good faith edit (i.e. not wanton vandalism, especially given their edit history). Wtshymanski is forbidden by his edit restriction to revert the edit either directly or indirectly regardless of its merits. This come about because he was disguising bad faith reverts of good faith edits as reverting vandalism. If the edit was a bad edit (for any reason) then Wtshymanski should have left it for others to revert (or possibly posted an edit request on the talk page). 85.255.234.176 (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

So you admit you've been stalking him? Great. I'll tell you what: provided that IP editor really wasn't you (which I'm not sure about; I consider it entirely possible that you're a liar), if you saw that reverting episode at Brilliant Suspension Bridge, the one and only constructive thing for you to have done would have been to make the revert yourself on Wtshymanski's behalf. The moment you failed to do that but instead ran here to complain, you showed your purpose is not maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia but "getting" that editor. Bad faith behaviour, open-and-shut case. Stop doing that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG This is just outright trolling to get at Wtshymanski. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a repeat of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#Wtshymanski reverting IP editors in breach of editing restrictions. So what's the problem here? I see Wtshymanski and an IP getting into a silly edit war over linking in an article - in my book that's usually a trout slap each and a request to use the talk page more. Given previous incidents and the topic ban, can somebody give me a solid reason why I shouldn't block? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, if there really is a restriction that punishes obviously good edits like the one we are talking about here, the restriction is rubbish. I, for one, refuse to assume the role of the dick enforcing it (and thereby rewarding the abominable behaviour of the anon stalker/complainant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, not an unreasonable stance to take, but that leads me to the question of what's changed since April, when Wtshymanski got two weeks off for (as far as I can tell) pretty much the same thing? If consensus is that the restriction is rubbish, let's have a discussion now to remove it. I will say that I'm not exactly impressed by him telling Andy Dingley to go **** himself here. However, conversely, in this edit he refrained from reverting when frankly under normal circumstances it would be perfectly reasonable to do so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I've struck that bit out, and as the one instructed to blossom, I think that's reasonable WP:TO. I sincerely regret that exchange - it was a genuine olive branch, because it was a topic his experience could have added to. But given the past history (and I've been a part of that) I can understand if he doesn't want to hear it from me. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That blanket restriction is there because there was a real problem and nothing else seemed to work to stop that. So Wtshymanski shouldn't have touched it. But raising it an ANI - that's just looking for a stick to beat him with. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

We either have a banning policy and enforce it, or we don't and turn a blind eye to it when it doesn't suit. Again, I don't really see any difference between this thread and the one I linked to earlier - in both cases I see Wtshymanski making perfectly reasonable edits that I would make myself, and certainly think filing an ANI complaint complaining about a very obvious vandalism revert is without merit and frivolous. Yet, KrakatoaKatie decided that was fair game for a two week block. So unless we get the restriction changed or modified, it seems that Wtshymanski has got the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, permanently at risk of getting a lengthy block for seemingly no real reason at all depending on which admins turn up to the discussion - and that's hardly fair, is it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This does seem to be the same editor running the I B Wright/LiveRail/DieSwartzPunkt socks. Lots of article overlap with the 86.157.210.153 (talk) IP, then a sudden baiting on an obscure Canadian bridge article created and recently edited by Wtshymanski. DieSwartzPunkt was heavily involved in the original topic ban. I'd say block the IPs for block evasion, move on, and ignore the trolling. Kuru (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing here that requires admin action against Wtshymanski. ANI is for real problems that disrupt the encyclopedia, not a club for beating someone over a minor technical infraction. I say block the IPs and close this. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 complaint has been closed on the basis of information that has been completely made up.

First: the claims that there is "Lots of article overlap with the 86.157.210.153 IP", is false. It is just 4 (four) articles. I checked for overlap between Kuru and a random editor on an article he has edited. Since there was a 14 article overlap, that means (by Kuru's standards) that he is more guilty of sock puppetry than the IPs.

Second; there is the claim in the closing summary that the two IPs resolve to the same ISP? No they don't. They are not even vaguely the same. The only thing they have in common is that they resolve to the same country, not evidence of anything. 85.255.234.239 (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I blocked you (and have just blocked this IP for 24 hours) because you were more interested in getting Wtshymanski in trouble than writing an encyclopedia. And please read stop bringing out the "iz it coz I iz IP" victim-seeking excuse and read User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 44#IP editing experiment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive IP user

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

---

Despite multiple warnings for the past month, 96.255.216.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been warned multiple times for leaving unsourced material, speculative edits, and other disruptive edits. They apparently are refusing to stop. Every time that they receive a warning on their Talk Page, they blank the page. This shows that they have clearly seen the warnings and are choosing to ignore them (they don't even so much as respond). DarkKnight2149 21:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There they go again... ([5], [6]) DarkKnight2149 00:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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-only account

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

---

The account Olireron appears to be used exclusively for vandalism. DarkKnight2149 04:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

They also appear to be relentlessly attacking Batman, an already protected page. DarkKnight2149 04:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Reporting User:Peeta Singh

The following discussion is closed. 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, moved multiple pages without edit summaries and not following WP:MOS. Even after intimation on talk page regarding policy violations he went right ahead and moved the pages again without consensus.

First round of disruption

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Punjabi_cinema_actors&diff=751082322&oldid=751082277
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Punjabi_cinema_actresses&diff=751082484&oldid=749814527

Secound round of disruption

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Punjabi_Cinema_actors&diff=751221939&oldid=751220625
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Punjabi_Cinema_actresses&diff=751222364&oldid=751220413

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KhaasBanda (talk • contribs) 05:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I should have edited a summary initially. The WP:CAPITALIZATION policy clearly emphasizes "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name". "Punjabi Cinema" is the proper name for the Punjabi film industry. User:KhaasBanda should have moved the pages back to "List of Punjabi cinema actors and actresses" with consensus here [7] and here [8]. I'm not being disruptive but improving Wikipedia.

Peeta Singh (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

cinema is not capitalised as per consensus. For example see Malayalam cinema or Bhojpuri cinema. KhaasBanda (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Peeta Singh, please learn what a proper name is. It only applies to a person, brand, registered organization, or a geographical entity, not to concepts like the filmmaking industry in a particular country. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Punjabi Cinema does refer to a unique entity, it refers to the Punjabi film industry. For example, London City Airport refers to the international airport in London, or Bahá'í Faith refers to monotheistic religion which emphasizes the spiritual unity of all humankind. These could also be written as London city airport and Bahá'í faith but that would not be correct. Other communities may use the term "cinema" as a common noun, but the Punjabis use "Punjabi Cinema" as a proper noun. For example, [9], [10], [11] (@0.14, Quote "He's been successful in Punjabi Cinema but after his success he's now going to Bollywood."), [12] (@0.14, Quote: "Binnu Dhillon, only the name is enough, responsible for the improvement of acting in Punjabi Cinema ...")

Peeta Singh, you are incorrect. Perhaps your English skills are not sufficient to grasp this, but the fact that sometimes a word is capitalized does not make it a proper noun, no matter who claims it is and no matter how often it is capitalized and no matter who capitalizes it. Pollywood is a proper noun, but Punjabi cinema is not. Please stop these moves and these incorrect assumptions, before you receive a sanction. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, BBC News, Indian Navy, Hindustan Times, Indian Ocean etc can be proper nouns but Punjabi Cinema can not. Where is the logic? On what basis is "Punjabi Cinema" not a proper noun? I'm improving Wikipedia, so on what basis will I be sanctioned?

Why has the "Punjabi Cinema" article been moved to "Punjabi cinema" without proper consensus? [13]

Peeta Singh (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, proper nouns are persons, brands, registered organizations, or geographical entities, not concepts like the filmmaking industry in a particular country. The fact that sometimes a word is capitalized does not make it a proper noun, no matter who claims it is and no matter how often it is capitalized and no matter who capitalizes it. Pollywood is a proper noun, but Punjabi cinema is not. If your English skills are too poor to comprehend this, then that cannot be helped; you are still incorrect. Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Ron Lucci has removed a speedy deletion tag on an article I've previously deleted; he is the article creator

The following discussion is closed. 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 aforementioned user has recreated a page that I've previously deleted, with barely any improvements (in fact, I'd argue that it was an even worse revision because the previous revision that got deleted at least had two [weak] references at the bottom). This revision has ZERO references. He is starting show disruption signs (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) - see 2) Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Looking at Ron's talk page, it would appear that Ron has not bothered to peer review his articles before publication. While not an offense, a poorly structured article that is recreated without addressing its previous issues lay the grounds for speedy deletion. I placed the WP:G4 tag at the very top of the recreated article, hoping that it gets speedy deleted by an admin. However, Ron has removed the tag by himself, even though he's not allowed to. Quoting the G4 notice: "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." Ron has blatantly violated the directions on the notice (since he is the article creator), hence I request that the page be speedy deleted, and that Ron be disallowed to recreate the same article until it has been peer reviewed and expanded enough to meet WP:WHYN. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Page has been deleted by User:Someguy1221 , thank you Someguy. Let's get this purple boxed and go edit something notable. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 07:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Refusing to leave Edit Summaries - User:Neptune's Trident

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

---

Neptune's Trident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is there anything that can be done when an editor refuses to leave edit summaries. I left a message on his talk page (which he quickly removed) and then just continued on with the behavior. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There isn't any requirement for anyone to leave edit summaries. It is helpful for other editors to scan quickly what was done but if someone doesn't use them that is a personal preference. -- GB fan 19:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I just saw above a similar section, #User:Sk8erPrince not using edit summaries when nominating articles for deletion. What is happeneing there where an editing restriction is put in place if what they are doing is disruptive can happen. You would have to show how it is disruptive though. -- GB fan 19:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Has the editor been making any major edits that the average editor would disagree with, and not leaving summaries? This is a case by case issue (referring to the above section). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, I just noticed you did not notify Neptune's Trident as required. I have left them the notification on their talk page. -- GB fan 20:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The lack of edit summaries is the least of the problems with User:Neptune's Trident. I would say that the main problem with this user is the blatant promotion of non=notable film critic J.C. Maçek III. There was a recent discussion on Jimbo's talk page about Neptune's Trident's creation of an article including obvious BLP violations. Of course, there is a GamerGate/Sad Puppies connection here which Google will happily supply if you ask. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• He is now leaving edit summaries. I have no comment regarding the other allegations here, particularly as no diffs have been supplied. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Vile insults

User:Whisper of the heart sent a vile insult against me in one of the edit summaries - diff.

Here is the translation:

Extended content

从前 Once upon a time 有个 there is T开头的 starting with T, as an adjective 智障 mentally retarded, as a noun 乱 this one is more difficult to translate, but it's somewhere in between "arbitrary" and "disruptively" 回退 rollback 别人的 of others 编辑 edits 还 yet 不给 not give 理由 reason 后来 later 他 he, used possessively 亲妈 (biological) mother 升天 went to heaven, usually as a curse for death 了 indicates a perfect tense In English this would be: Once upon a time there was a mentally retarded person starting with a T, who rollback edits of others without giving a reason; later his mother have went to heaven.

There is no excuse for such insults and of course they are posted in Chinese which is not the language I speak. In addition this user goes around making POV edits, refusing to discuss the issues at all, ignoring all arguments claiming how they were not given etc. But that is not relevant here, it's only to show that this is an extremely difficult person to work with.

This has been going on for quite a while now and he was previously blocked on Commons for a similar incident. The insults also had to be removed from the system because they were so nasty - similar incident on Wikimedia Commons.

I seek protection from such personal attacks.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I feel terribily sorry and apologize for my inappropriate language, I guarantee that I will be more polite and calm in communicating in the future. However, I disagree Twofortnights' announcement of so called POV edits and refusing discussions. In fact, my edits have proper sources which fits wikipedia's policy but he just doesn't recognize. In addition, I actively participate discuss, but due to Twofortnights' negative attitude, the discussion sometimes cannot go smoothly, this makes me mad from time to time. Overall, I understand that personal attack is no acceptible for any reason and I will pay more attention to my behavior in the future, but I think this incident is isolated and no extra protection is needed. --Whisper of the heart 10:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

For the admins attention, the same user said the same thing before (apology and promises) - [14]. So it's obviously a dishonest apology made to avoid the block and he has no intention to stop. In addition next to the supposed apology above he claims I cause his behavior but on Commons AN it was already found that analyzing the edits, there is not "any reason for it to be occurring".--Twofortnights (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Twofortnights, do you already read that language fluently without the need of a translator? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I now see above that you do not.
I've said it before, this is the English Wikipedia and all personal attacks must be in English. (That's satirical humor, by the way.) Twofortnights, you would not have felt insulted if you hadn't expended the effort to translate what are otherwise a bunch of gibberish noise characters to you. It was almost as if you were looking for a reason to be insulted and bring an ANI complaint. I favor a quick close here. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Just leaving a note that the translations were given by me. If there's anything wrong with my translation, it's not Twofortnights's fault. Also note that the edit summary of Special:Diff/748721461 is grossly inappropriate as well (if necessary I can provide a translation for this). Other edit summaries in Chinese may have the same issue, including Special:Diff/736992025 but this one is more difficult to understand with excessive usage of homophones. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't even see those, it shows a pattern and I now believe this account needs to be blocked, he obviously won't stop doing it. In addition I extend my plea to remove those edit summaries from the system as well as they are not edit summaries as such, just a platform to post insults that are more difficult to remove than comments on talk pages.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you can't go around and throw insults with it being considered irrelevant only because it's in a foreign language. I had to invest my effort only because the edit summary was in a foreign language and I wanted to know what was in the edit summary (pretty normal or not?) only to find vile insults against me. Either way as a bare minimum the edit summary needs to be removed as it is not an edit summary at all.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss do you want to AGF even a little here or nah; It was almost as if you were looking for a reason to be insulted and bring an ANI complaint. I favor a quick close here. - oh, so you don't mind if I insult you in a language you won't understand? that's fair game for you? It's not for most other editors - such as the OP and myself. Some types of comments are never acceptable. This was one of those types and the language used is irrelevant. Further, this was an NPA purely to be an NPA. It was an intentional deliberate attack without context - look at the edit, this was not angered edit-warring, it was a normal minor edit to remove an unnecessary space that was coupled with an offensive comment. Whisper had never edited that page prior to leaving that rude comment. That brings up two other issues, possible WP:HARASS and WP:STALK (User edits regularly on visa policy pages). Mr rnddude (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It's a personal attack and absolutely against Wikipedia's policies on civility. The fact that it is in another language is absolutely irrelevant and it should not be dismissed or discounted simply because of that fact alone. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I support an appropriate sanction. I note several previous warnings for bad behaviour on the user's Talk page. These issued by several editors, not only the OP. (They've all since been blanked.) ... richi (hello) 10:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I would certainly support a rule against the use of a foreign language in any interaction between editors on English Wikipedia. Clear communication is difficult enough when we all speak the same language. Violation of the rule after warning should be blockable as disruption. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm tempted to propose such a rule at WP:VPP right now, but I'll wait for other comments. It seems a no-brainer to me. It would facilitate communication, and it would put an end to the occasional ANI complaints like this one. It would require not only a rule change but a new warning template. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There is WP:SPEAKENGLISH but it only refers to talk pages. There is also Template:Uw-english. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Then I would modify that template to encompass all communication between editors, and I would modify policy - WP:DE? - as appropriate to make this blockable after warning. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose a blanket ban on the use of languages other than English. For one thing, if we have editors with limited command of English, it can be very helpful for people who speak their native language to be able to step in - and I've seen that approach being very effective over the years. I also don't see any problem with editors using other languages for the occasional bit of interpersonal talk when it's done in good faith and can help build the encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If an editor has a limited command of English, why are they editing English Wikipedia? As a way to learn English? There are more appropriate and more effective ways to learn English off-wiki. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of people with limited English contributing here very constructively, given a bit of help. In fact, I've done copy editing myself for editors whose English has been poor, and the collaboration has certainly been of benefit to the encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Boing here, this could be useful on article and article talk pages as well as other wiki pages, but, there's no reason to blanket ban communication in other languages. Especially not on user and user talk pages. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then we have the question of whether the defendant here knew they were violating any rule. For the future, maybe a clarification in WP:NPA would address that problem, but that wouldn't help with this complaint. We also have the question of whether this clears the PA bar, which is wildly inconsistent depending on the parties involved. And the broader problem of the frequent admin failure to enforce Wikipedia behavior policy in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but the language is really not relevant. We had a comment, it was identified as problematic, and it has been dealt with in the usual inconsistent manner (as any judgment-based system always is) - just the same as if it had been in English. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, business as usual. I withdraw. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not unsympathetic to the issues of inconsistency and our failure to really even define behaviour policy properly let alone enforce it - but after seeing so many efforts over the years, I really haven't the faintest idea of how we can improve things (though I guess that's for another forum). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I can't withdraw if you reply to me. LOL. It doesn't seem so complicated to me. The spirit of WP:BATTLEGROUND (for example) is quite clear and simple, and we shouldn't need a full-blown week-long trial, with no rules of engagement, to sanction violations of that spirit. In my view, if an admin can't make such a call correctly, they have no business being an admin. The corollary is that admins should be largely immune to attacks on their judgment in such cases, and they are not. Figuring out to fix this isn't hard, it's the political obstacles to such change, and that's the result of being self-governed. My ultimate position seems to alternate between (1) WMF intervention is required, and (2) the problem is intractable, so we should stop wasting our time discussing it. You're right, it's for another forum. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. While articles and open discussion should be written in English, there are many situations where editing and communicating in a foreign language is completely fine. His example is perfect. If two editors and just laying back and chatting with one another on one of their talk pages and the conversation is casual and not against policy etc, what honest and justifiable right would I really have to jump in there and say "Hey, speak English! using any other language is banned!"? This is one example out of many that shows how enacting this kind of ban would not only be a terrible idea, but also really really silly :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment That edit summary was really offensive. It should be considered a 9/10 on the offensive scale. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Would a revdel be wise? RD2 covers grossly insulting comments doesn't it? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No. It is not in that category. It is not grossly insulting, but it is a serious attack. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know, it is hard for me to judge personally, as I am not a native reader of Chinese. But I am in China and surrounded by Chinese people right now and they read it. Consensus is 9/10. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting input from native Chinese speakers - based on that, I've rev-deleted the edit summary as grossly offensive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to add that 9/10 seems close enough ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. Revdelling is not unreasonable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Anna Frodesiak. Would the other two insults raised by Zhuyifei1999 above [15] and [16] also fall in the category?--Twofortnights (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

[17] doesn't seem to make sense to us and [18] is a 9.5/10 on the offensive scale. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate is unhelpful. The latter diff says something about dog food. Patient Zero^talk 12:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Should GT help, here's a literal translation of the former: A system you stick, you pull pull ye not to your body inches to the wall? Patient Zero^talk 12:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Homophones are used here: 制杖 => 智障, 拔拔 => 爸爸. No obvious meaning in "你身寸到墙上呢？" --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That makes a bit more sense Zhuyifei1999 - revdel appropriate here, then? Patient Zero^talk 12:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel this is more like "Stop beating your head against the wall, stupid".--Auric talk 12:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Eh, Patient, it makes no sense to the Chinese reading Chinese. Why would google translate be helpful here... Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You never know Mr rnddude - maybe someone could ascertain whether or not the edit summary truly was offensive with a literal translation. If anything, I'm not too sure about it myself, but I only have a very basic command of the language. Patient Zero^talk 12:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It is hard for translation software because he is using characters that are homonyms. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Anna Frodesiak. Patient Zero^talk 12:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

In translation the comment certainly looks like an insult. And I’m not excusing the editor who made that edit summary. But most non-Chinese readers would have to take quite a lot of trouble to actually get the insult. And even then, one is left wondering - is this some kind of mild Chinese idiomatic/ proverbial saying? Most of the impact of that insult is wholly lost on most users of en.wiki? Just saying. Martinevans123 (talk)

Which one? the "mentally retarded" comment, the dog food one, or the makes no sense one? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

All three? In the original Chinese, of course. Where it's difficult to see there are three. The dog food must have escaped me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Whisper of the heart, if you do not end up blocked over all of this, do not write anything like that ever again, okay? We must remain polite. That is really important here. You are welcome here, but none of that, okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this user made apologies and promises before on Commons and then went on to spread the hate here on, as we've learned now, multiple occasions. Even in the sole response here he claims it's an isolated incident and only because I made him mad (in fact it was his first ever edit in that article, there was no dispute instead he merely removed one extra space and as we've all seen this was definitely not isolated). I think a block would be in order, not because I am vindictive, but because this is already a second chance that the user failed to use. Even if direct insults in Chinese stop I am afraid I can only expect further harassment via other means.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Any spare Chinese insults are welcome at my Talk Page where I will happily refuse to translate them.

Homophonia will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Thincat (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you can see why people get upset when inverts engage in aural sex in public. EEng 02:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

To @Twofortnights:, @Anna Frodesiak: and all other users in this discussion, I have realized that my action make other people unpleasant and it's very inappropriate in Wikipedia. I will follow the etiquette and avoid personal attact in the future. Once more, I am sorry for inappropriate language usage this time. --Whisper of the heart 01:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Whisper of the heart. Okay. Thank you for your understanding. I will not block you. If others wish to, that is their choice. My view is that you understand what not to do in the future. You wish to remain a part of this project. You will carry on as a constructive member of the community. If there is anything you ever need or have any questions, please ask. Thank you, and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Whisperer of the heart, thank you for taking the time to come here and apologize for your behavior and acknowledge that it was not appropriate conduct. It was a very serious personal attack and I'm very certain that you were aware that this is not acceptable conduct when you did so, but I will acknowledge your apology and hold you to your statement that you will follow Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines and refrain from any such actions like this in the future. Because of this acknowledgment, I will endorse Anna Frodesiak's decision not to block you for this. Please do not let this happen again; it's not the temperament and conduct that is expected from an editor whose goals are in-line with positively building and improving Wikipedia. If you need to talk to anybody, you have any questions or needs help, or if you'd like a mentor to keep you on-track - you're more than welcome to come to me and I will help you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The dog food one doesn't make a lot of sense because of the 吔 character. Largely because this is a southern dialect, specifically to the Zhuhai region. It means "to eat". Some of it doesn't seem to make sense because of the way the characters are being used. They're the written form of spoken words that would otherwise not actually have a formal character. This is quite characteristic of southern Cantonese. Basically, the "dog food" one says "go home and eat dog food, you grub".

Also, another Cantonese characteristic is to shorten a sentence removing characters that don't need to be said because the general usage is understood. For 你身寸到墙上呢, it means, loosely "are you wider than a wall?" or even more loosely "are you fatter than a house?". The full sentence would be closer to 你身材尺寸達到墙以上呢 = "your body measurements are bigger than a wall". In this example, 身材尺寸 has been abbreviated to 身寸. 身材 means figure but 身 means body and has basically the same meaning. 尺寸 literally means "feet-inches" or measurement, since both relate to measurement removing the "feet" character doesn't take anything away from the overall meaning, provided you're familiar with the dialect. This is why GT can't work with Cantonese unless the full phrasing is used. Blackmane (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Series of very brief pages on highly technical subjects

There has been a rash of recent new pages from new editors that appear to be on highly specialized technical topics, but with no links or even much context whatsoever. See Stress in rotating rings, Space resistance to radiation, Valve timing diagram, Capabilities of computer control, etc. Not sure at all what to do about these since they appear to be abandoned after being created. It alomost looks like homework of some sort. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This looks like some sort of school project. The articles you mentioned above were all copyright infringements and have been deleted. If you find more such pages, please check for copyright issues and inform the initial creators of this discussion. De728631 (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Doing so though many times I'm not finding it immediately, perhaps they are being copied from textbooks. See Advanced automation functions, Differential mobility spectrometer. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

And this is now getting absurd. They are popping up like crazy now, all from different accounts yet obviously connected. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, it seems like these are all/mostly notable subjects. If someone can figure our how to get back to the source, and explain that even a short stub -- paraphrased from a source or sources -- would be welcome, that would be great. EEng 20:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Some recent editors doing this - User:Shangkeinus2016eps, User:Yadav.abhi, User:Dpkanjo, User:AMIT KUMAR9084114320, User:Omveersinghkemoriya, that's just in the past few hours. Can we open up an investigation and block this range somehow? Blocking individual users doesn't help because they keep creating new accounts, protecting pages doesn't help because they keep changing the article title. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• There's an SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivam268 where opinion appears to be that this is a class assignment. Probably the instructor told them to make pages from things in books. A few were subjects where A10 came in as well as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

One revert rule is protecting a user instead of an article

2A1ZA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, the article Human rights in Rojava is under the general sanctions for the Syrian Civil War. The article imply listing violations in a place named Rojava, hence it has a geographic scope. This scope was agreed to be land controlled by the founders of Rojava after a long discussion

When the article was fully protected, User 2A1ZA asked for a controversial paragraph and out of the scope to be inserted but the admin told him to reach a consensus. Such a consensus didnt happen and then the protection ended and 2A1ZA was told that does not need to ask an admin to make edits for him anymore. The user understood this as if the admin was telling that he can have his edit inserted into the article. Today, 2A1ZA inserted the paragraph implying that it was the admin gave him the authority in his edit summary.

Does the one revert rule protect edits out of the scope of a certain article ?

How will the one revert rule stop this kind of behavior? It only benefit 2A1ZA. He is inserting controversial edits with no consensus and no discussion and hiding behind the one revert rule. I understand perfectly the damage of edit warring, but is this the only criteria here? He can do whatever he likes as long as edit warring is stopped? Please help me understanding how Wikipedia is going now. Cause all I can see is that an editor can take advantage of the rules. From now on, he will insert whatever he like, with no consensus and no talk page and hide behind the one edit rule. His edit is against the consensus and the scope of the article, yet he is allowed to keep it and others are the ones who should take it to the talk page!!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Attar-Aram syria, please read the edit related discussion on the article talk page. And the "agreement" you claim here on your desire to radically narrow the scope of Section 2 (""Human rights issues with Syrian Civil War armed forces in the region"") of that article, in a pretty absurd manner which apparently shall simply exclude human rights violations of Syrian civil war parties of your liking, does not exist. You implicitly admit that, when talking about an RFC to seek enforce your view, and leaving alone the many elements of that section 2 of the article that do not fit your desire to radically narrow its scope. Please engage in a constructive good faith discussion on the article talk page, or initiate the RFC you talk about if you prefer that. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was memorized by me. All editors, excluding you, agreed that the very large scope was unacceptable. The actual scope is logical since Rojava is a non historic region and a certain territory become a "Rojava" only after the said entity annex that certain region. Anyway, this paragraph you inserted was controversial and had no consensus regardless of the scope. You can see in the answer of the admin that you need to get a consensus for it first.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:1RR does not prevent someone from making an edit once, nor from someone else undoing that edit once. That it didn't get consensus previously is good evidence that the undoing--pending discussion to get consensus--is the right way forward. DMacks (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear DMacks, on the same article right this morning, Attar-Aram syria once again without consensus and against my clear objection removed an existing paragraph on FSA torture videos, see here (and compare article history). Would you suggest to reinstate that paragraph pending discussion as well? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not "once again", I was within my reverting capacity as it has been more than 40 hours for my last revert. I did my first revert on 18 November 10:14. Today, I did my second revert after 40 hours or more. The paragraph he is talking about was deleted by another user, and supported by me, and it is out of the scope of the article and was discussed in the talk page. The consensus was to deleted it (2 to 1) and based on the scope of the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If the content has been there for a while, then "removal" is an edit, and "re-insertion" is the first undoing of it. Assuming the content isn't grossly offensive or completely uncited, the pre-existing status quo should remain pending an ongoing discussion. A timeframe of 30-40 hours is not sufficient to prove "long-standing/status-quo", especially for long-term controversial topics. And no part of WP:1RR is a license to revert every >24h...edit-warring over a timeframe of 40 hours is as likely to get you blocked as literal 1RR in a specific timeframe. DMacks (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

DMacks, It has been a long time for that paragraph, but I thought the rule was literal: every 24 hours. Okay, Im in the middle of writing a new article See here. I cant afford to be blocked for such a reason. Will reverting myself be a good measure to avoid the violation ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear DMacks, the paragraph concerned has been up there for a long time, it definitely was part of the article while it had full protection in late October, see here. Reinstate now? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted my self (though the paragraph is out of the scope of the article).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• The dispute between these two users came to a head recently at SPI in which I advised Attar-Aram syria to read the essay on forum-shopping. They had already tried to get 2A1ZA blocked in previous ANI thread in September and didn't get the answer they wanted, and a month later tried the same evidence at SPI. This new thread is a continuation of the same dispute; if it continues further, I don't think it would be unreasonable to start discussing topic bans. There doesn't seem to be any interest from either side of this dispute in discussion to find a common ground, only gaming the rules to continue reverting to their preferred version. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector, it wasnt shopping, you demanded a proof and the IP didnt have it while I did and it was a very strong one and I still cant believe how it was handled. Anyway, this isnt a continuation of the dispute, its about the role of the 1rr. As for "getting" the result I want, can you at least look at the case of September and tell me that nothing was suspicious ! If I see something that imply cheating, I will talk about it and I will not shut up in fear of being accused of playing games or pursuing a result I want. BTW, this case has been resolved before you commented. I also advise you to go through your comment cause it contained a false info when you said that I used the same evidence from the September case. I did not do it cause the evidence you are talking about did not exist in September. Most importantly, this isnt just me and the editor; many others have reported him, just follow his talk page and you will see. Note, to debunk what you accused me of (that I play the rules to get my preferred version), read my last reply before you commented, you will notice that I reverted myself and brought back my non-preferred version. Oh, and before you commented, I approached the user on his talk page to find a common ground Here (so everything you said is not accurate)--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

One revert rule is protecting a user instead of an article

Attar-Aram syria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This morning, Attar-Aram syria has once again removed a paragraph (FSA Jarabulus torture videos) from the Human rights in Rojava article, see edit here (the flag issue is not relevant, it was mistakenly removed with the revert edit before), while fully aware that he is doing so against clear and express objection (and without a serious reason to delete in substance). As I had just reinstated that paragraph immediately before, the 1RR rule prevents me from reinstating the paragraph for a day. Shall this 1RR rule really protect an editor who seeks to arbitrarily delete human rights violations by a Syrian Civil War party of his liking from the article? Should this paragraph be reinstated pending discussion? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a repetition of the same argument above, hence, my reply is also above.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: For anyone confused. This is just what opened this report, just reversed, where Attar tried to call out 2A, rather than the other way around (as has happened here). MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 21:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

More Twinkle nonsense

Neddy1234 (talk · contribs) added 2016 results to the presidential elections table in Alaska. This was reverted in this edit by Magnolia677 (talk · contribs) using Twinkle with the boilerplate edit summary "Unsourced". Of course, there is no end to the amount of garbage being added to the encyclopedia as of late related to this election and attributed to the mere existence of reliable sources, so I smelled bullshit and called bullshit by reverting Magnolia's edit. My edit was reverted here with another boilerplate edit summary, "Please do not add this data without a source, per WP:PROVEIT. Discuss on talk page if you disagree.". While it's great and all that some folks are such experts when it comes to Twinkle and enjoy picking low-hanging fruit rather than putting real effort into building an information resource, it's plainly obvious that letting scripts dictate how and when to edit Wikipedia in lieu of exercising any common sense whatsoever will only kill the project in the end. There's also the aspect of whether we're here to offer encyclopedic information on notable topics or we're here merely to repeat particular sources, but I'd rather save that argument for later.

My edit summary shows that plenty was wrong with Magnolia's rationale, so I poked around during what little free time I had earlier. First of all, the edit which started this is improper. The home page of the Alaska Division of Elections website prominently mentions "Unofficial Election Results" at the top of the page. This means that these results are preliminary and not certified, which further means that they'll have to be revised at some point. As there is a long history of that particular practice occurring here and no evidence that's it's being discouraged, I'm not so sure what to say. As I mentioned, the entire table is unsourced. It has existed in the article since September 2008 and has been unsourced the entire time. Judging from the edit summary which added the table, it may have previously existed in the article, but I don't have time to track that down. That edit summary hinted that it was restored to keep the article in line with other U.S. state articles. I didn't go through every other state article, but most of the ones I did look at had similar tables, mostly unsourced. Of particular interest is Massachusetts, a GA, which likewise contains an unsourced table. The few that were sourced were to Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. I question whether this website really is a reliable source or merely a convienent/easy concatenation of information which can be reliably sourced elsewhere. Minnesota contains a table of historical election results for not only the presidential race, but gubernatorial and senatorial races, with a source to Leip at the top of the table. Clicking on that URL leads to a page which only mentions the results of the 2016 presidential race! Obviously, if you're really worried about sourcing and nothing else, this is a real can of worms here. The second main issue I brought up in my edit summary has to do with NPOV. The vast majority of these tables only give results for the two largest parties. This can be a problem, especially where the respectable or even winning by-state totals for Ross Perot and George Wallace are obscured by relegation to the table's footnotes or not even mentioned at all. I could come up with a solution, but I'm not sure it would satisfy NPOV.

In the course of this poking around, the one thing which really caught my attention was this notice on Neddy's talk page from earlier this year. This caused me to wonder if Magnolia is stalking Neddy's edits and if this is the real cause for all this. I've already pointed out that lack of sourcing for this particular edit is a red herring, and if you were to take that seriously, it would be akin to sticking a child's bandage on a severed jugular vein. Anyway, I've already made my feelings known about ANI, so I don't know if I'll be back to check on this. I just wanted to put the information out. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've been watching this unfold but thus far had not put my oar in. My observations are as follows:

• While none of the election results are certified yet, the race has been called by reliable sources.
• So I do think including them, with the idea that actual totals will be added when the results are certified, is permissible, iff a source is attached.
• In any event, I think it's a shame that none of the involved parties tried actual discussion to resolve this, preferring instead to trade comments in edit summaries, which is never the right way to resolve anything. WP:BRD was not followed.

Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: - I have about 6,000 U.S. cities, towns and counties in my watchlist, and in the past two weeks I have reverted about 10 different editors who have added election results without a source. In some cases I left messages on editor's talk pages, like here and here. I also took time to check the unsourced election results that some editors has added against a reliable source, and in some cases, it was not correct. This is probably why WP:V is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. In this edit, which you mention above, you were politely asked to explain on the article's talk page why you feel unsourced election results should be added to the Alaska article, but instead of discussing your concern there, you instead came here. Furthermore, your edit summary here isn't going to win you a Barnstar of Diplomacy. Finally, you suggest that I need to put "real effort into building an information resource". In the past four years I've made 37,032 edits and created 285 articles. In fact, no editor in the history of Wikipedia has added more Love, Love, Love, Love, Love than me. So please, don't be so cheeky. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe take your own advice here and there. I have twice as many edits as you, so what? Swaggering like this is distinctly unhelpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Pride is not swagger my friend. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a Twinkle issue. If Twinkle didn't exist, Magnolia677 would have used undo. If undo didn't exist, Magnolia677 would have done it manually. This is because the root of the problem is that information was added without a source (WP:BURDEN). Why bring up the tool when it's the behavior you're concerned about? You do realize it's just a way to make reverting and warnings slightly easier, right? It's not like Huggle where it shows you an edit that might be vandalism and encourages you to revert it so you can get on to the next in line. clpo13_(talk) 00:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that the at least a part of the issue here is common courtesy and the tool usage. I constantly observe the frustration of new editors on @Magnolia677:'s talk page after their edits are removed with a terse comment 'unsourced', and I do not believe that Magnolia677's methods are always effective. Although, I'm sure that Magnolia677's intentions are noble, the usage of a tool tends to mechanize the process, and this mechanization discourages proper dialog and human cooperation. After all, it's better to engage a new user than to deter her; it's better to properly source added text than to remove it entirely; it's better to politely discuss a controversial issue, than to approach it with automated edits and/or with elliptical remarks. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, I request you to kindly take some action on The Discoverer

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

---

Dear Administrators, The Discoverer is deleting the contents of this page without discussing on talk page even after requests. He want to somehow show that deaths were associated with demonetization. It is very serious thing. Spreading wrong information can have very bad impact on people. There are about 20 to 25 thousand views to this page daily. This can have serious implications on Indian Economy. I would like to request to take appropriate action against him. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not personally seeing that The Discoverer has made any major or truly significant deletions from Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation, and you have not provided any DIFFs of proof of longterm abuse. In fact, this seems to be a content dispute that belongs on the talk page of the article. There was one short discussion in which you apparently did not completely receive the answer you wanted, so it appears you have raised your level of hysteria and accusations, posting notices anywhere you could think of rather than posting neutrally worded and neutrally titled threads on the article's talk page, and availing yourself of some form of official Disupte Resolution if needed. Please go back to the article's talk page and engage civilly with other editors rather than threatening and becoming overly alarmist. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Not more of this nonsense? Is it the same people arguing? Is there actually a user conduct problem this time? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait, which of my questions are you answering? The second? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Here The Discoverer has removed a well referenced source giving the reason that he finds that it is unrelated / irrelevant. Is it ok to remove a reference like that only becasue one think that they are not important? I am learning new editing styles here. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

My response is two fold, first, you are clearly not formatting the citations according to the established practice at the article. This is per WP:CITEVAR guidelines. So, I am not surprised to see it removed when that sentence already has four other citations. Second, this page is only for problems requiring administrative intervention. You would be best served taking this to the article talk page as that is where you can and should get feedback from other editors. If you need help, consider WP:TEAHOUSE for questions about editing and/or editing practices. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Removal of well sourced 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.

---

The user Jytdog has been a persistent thorn in the side when it comes to improvements to performance-enhancing substance. The well-sourced proposed edits were discussed on the article's Talk page. The article was updated per the discussion, and then in defiance of the discussion, Jytdog removed the added content. This is not acceptable, and there is no further discussion to be had about it. There is no further concession I can make. The content is well sourced and it belongs in the article. It was very conservatively added as it is. Jytdog's behavior as someone who always wants things to go his own way, in explicit disagreement with those of others, has been concerning. --Hyperforin (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Would you care to explain why you used the edit summary of this edit to engage in personal attacks against another editor? Furthermore, despite your implied claim of consensus, what I see in the talk is a number of people expressing reservations about the proposed content and the sources, and you arguing for it. When, more recently, Jytdog pointed out one particular problem with the proposed text without mentioning anything else, you apparently took that as agreement to insert it. I'm guessing that you might want to withdraw this request and return to talk before you discover an unpleasant surprise. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

WTF?! Looks like a load of broken markup and original research pushing dodgy views was removed. The editor who put it there would be more properly under the spotlight. So yes, boomerang. Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOOMERANG. This isn't nice. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit appears to be a WP:COPVIO. The quote was too long. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone ever accused someone else of "removing sourced content" and been right (or honest) about the content being properly sourced? The title of this section is a dead giveaway that something is wrong. I'm a merciful type, so I'll say to Hyperforin that they should withdraw the above comment and request that this thread be closed. If they refuse, I would propose they be issued a final warning and then the thread can be closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BTW, persistent thorn in the side is not a common turn of phrase; clearly what is meant is persistent thorn in my side. Is this user trying to game the system by disguising their grossly uncivil language/OWN-mentality so that they can say the exact same thing without actually saying it? Clearly they didn't mean persistent thorn in our side because (a) more than one person would have more than one side and (b) Jytdog was clearly in the majority and the OP was the only one on his side of the discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is a single one of you (Personal attack removed) actually paying attention to the material that was removed in the edit? All I see is attempts to sideline the point at hand. I don't care about the quote - it was added only for clarity. The statement in question is "The literature is supportive of adaptogenic properties of R. rosea and S. chinensis." This statement was thoroughly supported by the added quote. And fuck your mercy Hijiri88 - you have no power over me. --Hyperforin (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang time

Propose indef block for Hyperforin (talk · contribs) per the above. Appears to be an SPA (though I'm not a subject expert), gross battleground mentality, refusal to listen or drop the stick, and assumption that everyone who disagrees is a "cliquey quack". Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. This isn't a traditional newcomer situation -- they've been here since January and have more than 600 edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've just blocked him for 48 hours; give him the chance to either demonstrate that he can cope with working on a collaborative project, or prove to us that he can't. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see that he'd already been blocked. I think an indef would have been acceptable per the above disruption, but let's see how this pans out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Given the hissy-fit last time he was blocked I don't expect this one to improve his behaviour—some people just aren't cut out for a collaborative environment—but he deserves the chance to prove me wrong. ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Carl Anthony Reece

The following discussion is closed. 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 really wonder what is the deal with this user: Carl Anthony Reece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I strongly suspect that this is a bot account spamming talk pages. The user also modified his signature to remove a link to his user/talk page and responds to User:SineBot marking his post as unsigned, which makes him post another response, lather, rinse, repeat. (I have blocked the account, but he didn't seem to notice.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like he's now blocked globally. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP editing at Protests against Donald Trump

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

---

63.143.194.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit-warring on the protests against Donald Trump article for over a half-hour, regarding edits believed to be WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Despite multiple warnings and advice on edit summaries to take it to the talk page, he has continued to edit-war and also exhibit aggressive, WP:NOTHERE behavior. Some of his edit summaries are overly indicative of said behavior ([19] [20]). When he finally chose to discuss it on the talk page, he simply carried his behavior over there ([21] [22]). Right now he seems to have calmed down a little and is participating, but has apparently indicated some sort of WP:OWNERSHIP attitude about the article ([23]).

As a result of his edit-warring and aggressiveness, I reported him to WP:AN3RR ([24]) and WP:AVI ([25]). I later realized the latter report was a mistake, since AVI wasn't the appropriate thread to report his behavior, and vacated it. However, before that happened, he accused me of vandalism by filing that report and then proceeded to follow my lead, reporting me on AVI. Also, he linked Inverted Pyramid ([26]), claiming it was an WP:MOS article or something along those lines...but the link directs me to an article about a skylight in a French shopping mall/museum. He may have been referring to this article, but he recommended me to read it for "writing tips on how to structure encylopedia articles", and I'm not sure why he would do that. Parsley Man (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it is a principle of good newspaper + encylopedia writing that the lead contains answers to "Who, what , why, when, where, how." My point was that the Protests article must contain, in the lead, an explanation of WHY people are protesting. That's all. It's an extremely well accepted principle of writing for these sorts of texts and well established and known around here and in the wider world. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

As for accusing you of vandalism, I accused you of vandalizing the AVI page, by using it to report edits you disagreed with which were obviously not vandalism. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, for your information, I actually forgot for a moment that ANI existed for occasions such as these. But I recognized that flub and redacted that report, so please, calm down. Parsley Man (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm calm. You are the one running around filing as many administratitive reports as you can instead of engaging in debate. As for ownership, I told you to edit my edits, but not to just delete them en masse when they filled a gaping chasm in the article lead (namely, WHY are people protesting? You cannot have a protest article without giving a statement of why people are protesting in the lead.)63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I am engaging in debate too. But your behavior needed to be reported at WP:AN3RR and WP:ANI. Had you followed instructions way earlier and taken the dispute to the talk page in a calm and civil fashion, this may have been avoided. But did you? No. Parsley Man (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@63.143.194.13: reporting Parsley Man for vandalism was absurd, especially if he removed the report. That won't help your cast, at all. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 21:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I reported him before he removed the report. This is the first I am hearing that he removed the report. I only reported him to make the point that he well knew that I wasn't vandalizing the page, and that it was inappropriate to report a content dispute as vandalism. Apparently it served its purpose, as he withdrew the report I'm now told and figured out that I wasn't a vandal just because we disagree. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Exciting update, gang: I've now withdrawn my report as well. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That's why you dispute the report, not final another, false report! As I said, not helping your case. Your report was a show of immaturity. You claimed he wouldn't discuss, yet you jumped and filed a false report, intentionally. His was an accident. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 21:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Sooooo...you reported me at AVI to make a point. And I didn't withdraw my AVI report because of you; I withdrew it because I was going to edit it but then saw the notice that AVI was for obvious vandalism/spam. Parsley Man (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one to find it ironic that the IP now wants to collaborate after edit warring, making false accusations, and filing reports? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Come on. He knew my edits were not vandalism; I added at least a dozen sources for my claims. Doesn't point apply to articles? If not, my mistake. Under my original interpretation, filing a report of vandalism against a content dispute IS itself vandalism. If I erred in thinking so, I made a mistake, just as the Parsleyman did, which you've found it in your heart to forgive him for. Is there no forgiveness in there for MY errors? Anyway, it's been dropped. Let the great collaboration begin!63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you not read the part where I said I forgot ANI existed for a moment and that I saw the AVI requirements the second time around? Parsley Man (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the same thing. What a coincidence! 63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

...Okay...I'm not sure if you're being sincere of if you're mocking me right now... Parsley Man (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

must I choose, my parsleyed friend ? 63.143.199.33 (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Kingshowman. Parsley Man (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible scam

The following discussion is closed. 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 see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#J.John is an very sophisticated scam. I'm not sure what to make of it, and it might have been better posted here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing. He's complaining that the Huffington Post articles aren't real, but they are. I'm not exactly sure what the issue is. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 05:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No they aren't. They aren't articles, they're blog entries that he wrote. You can tell because when you click on an article like this it says "the blog" above the headline, that means he isn't a HP writer, he's just a blogger. Compare to a Forbes blogger as far as notability. Lots of garbage references (YouTube videos, blogspot, etc.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There may be lots of poor quality references, but it falls short of the sort of "scam" being claimed on VP/T. It's clearly not an AN/I issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to split the discussion like that. It's still going on over there. You folks pick where you want it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Suicide after serious claims made against person, including in Wikipedia article

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

---

Over the past week, a woman has made serious and (currently) unproven claims against the famous photographer David Hamilton. These claims made their way into his Wikipedia article. During this time, User:Wvdpanhuysen created an account to suggest at Talk:David Hamilton (photographer) that the allegations are removed. It was almost certainly a single-purposer account. The user found no reply. Earlier tonight, Mr Hamilton was found dead at his home in an apparent suicide. Whilst Wikipedia is probably not to blame here, it should make editors feel very uncomfortable. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:B09D:E229:E3F9:2664 (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A couple of remarks

1. It's why we have WP:BIO.
2. The article cited does not claim suicide (cites unclear circumstances) and the guy was 83
3. Wikipedia is intended to summarize the sources. If reliable sources level accusations, Wikipedia reports them. Neutrally.
4. Guilt tripping people, generally, is unproductive.
5. This is fodder for the WP:VILLAGEPUMP, not WP:ANI.

Kleuske (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Linguist111 at WP:UAA

Linguist111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For previous discussion see WT:UAA, sections entitled "clerking" and "Users who have only edited drafts or whatever". In brief, UAA does not have clerks and every time it has come up consensus has been that they are not needed or desirable. However, this user has appointed themselves to the role nonetheless. I have endeavored to explain to them what things non-admins can do that are helpful at UAA, as opposed to getting int he way of admins trying to do the job the community has appointed them to do. His response is that he will continue to act as a clerk, period.

I'd like to be clear that I don't think this user is acting in bad faith, and their reports to UAA have been fine on the whole, but the self-appointed clerking is not being done well and is not particularly helpful The page is called "Usernames for administrator attention", not "free for all anyone just show up and do whatever". So what I am asking of the community is to look into this and either ask them to stop taking these clerking actions, or tell me I'm way off base and everything's fine. For the record, as is this is a large part of our disagreement, every discussion that I am aware of going back several years has reflected a consensus that "soft" blocking of users with blatantly promotional names is an appropriate and desirable response. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'll preface this by saying that I also think Linguist has acted in good-faith and don't think any sanction would be appropriate. I do think we should consider whether we want non-admins to "clerk" UAA. Similar to WP:PERM and WP:AIV, I think this is one of the incredibly few admin-only areas on the site. UAA is where editors go to request a block for a username violation. Non-admins can't block, so they can't process those requests, end of. If a non-admin would like to process WP:UAA block requests, RfA is that way. More importantly, I've started seeing more and more non-admins pop up to "clerk" these requests, and some of them have had competence issues. There's no reason to allow that to continue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You assume good faith on my part, but I can't say I can do the same for you. You've been very personal towards me during this dispute, with all of these frivolous edit summaries [27] [28] [29] [30], your use of the word "clerking" in speech marks etc.. Not conduct I expect from an administrator. As I said at the discussion at WT:UAA, the users whose username appear promotional, but their edits aren't connected to their username, I engage in discussion with. That's how I've seen it done most of the time. It even says at WP:UAA/I: Promotional violations require indisputable evidence. Do not report a username merely because it "looks" promotional. For there to be a violation, there must be edits or log entries that clearly link them to a particular company, organization, group, product, or website. Also, I feel that blocks, even soft blocks, can deter users; in my opinion it's better to discuss with them because it gives them a chance to get their account renamed quickly. I've seen many users change their usernames after discussion. Anyways, I want to enjoy being on Wikipedia, and the last thing I need is someone behaving this way towards me. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 06:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have an interest in WP:UAA, as I routinely patrol new usernames looking for promotional usernames. @Linguist111: Many times I see you tag a posting at UAA as "being discussed with user" (Examples: [31][32][33]). Yet, no discussion is taking place at all. A notice has been placed on the editor's talk page, but they haven't responded. A notice on a talk page does not equal discussion. IF the user respond, THEN there is discussion (perhaps). Using the model you've been using for this, every time I post a promotional username to WP:UAA you would deny it, indicating it was being discussed with the user. I always post a {{uw-coi-username}} to the editor's talk page, wait for promotional edits, and then post to WP:UAA for failure to adhere to policy. Since I posted a warning, this would equal "discussion" in your model. Please, don't tag UAA notices as discussing unless actual discussion is taking place. Please. That said, I do see you doing good work such as this. I see no problem with continuing this work, and kudos to you for doing it. @Beeblebrox: while certainly other eyes were needed at this discussion, the discussion wasn't stale. Bringing it here to AN/I was premature, in my opinion. There's no need for any administrator action here. Anyone can appoint themselves to the role of "clerk" there, and that will not change. If someone is doing something incorrectly; fine, let's correct it. Trying to get Linguist to stop is a non-starter when there's good work in play. There's not just two options; that of either yes or no. Specifically address what needs to improve. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thanks, and thanks for your input. I understand your point about the "discussion" thing, but I previously thought that the {{UAA|d}} template was intended for use after a username warning was given to the user, regardless of whether they had responded yet or not. If I do see a username at UAA that is not a blatant violation, but requires discussion with the user, what should I do if I have warned the user but they have yet to respond? Should I leave a note such as "I've warned the user" (or use a template like {{AIV|w}}; maybe not as the template says that is for AIV), or just leave the report alone until the user responds? Thanks! Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think we need to see what pattern of edits they make, if it's not a blatant violation. It's possible a warning isn't even warranted if it's not blatantly promotional, though of course in this case they've already been reported, whether there's been a warning or not. I'd continue to observe, and if the edits appear promotional, take the appropriate action to remove the promotional edits and warn the editor. If they continue to promote, then they should be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think both parties have to take some blame for this. Linguist; I'm going to do whatever I like on Wikipedia, as long as it adheres to policy - that isn't a good attitude to go into things with. There are many things that are within Wiki policy that can also be disruptive. For example, anybody can leave comments at AN/I, there is no hard and fast rule for "experienced" users. That doesn't mean that anybody should. It happens that a simple issue blows up into a gargantuan one. Hell I've seen a mildly annoyed administrator get dragged to ARBCOM by other overreacting users. All over an AfD tag to an article. Further; I will continue to decline requests as I see fit - is an even worse response. When somebody tries to tell you that you're doing something wrong or unhelpful, refusing to listen and saying that you'll do things your way is just going to piss them off. Simultaneously, Beeblebrox, edit summaries such as "groan" and "crappy" will get you nowhere with any self-respecting user. It's not an attack or anything, just that, most editors don't respond well to their good faith efforts being labelled as crap. Especially when that's an overblown description of what's actually happening. The biggest beef you seem to have is the use of the discussion template, the other things are apparently generally fine if I read the talk page and this correctly. The best action to take is to give a calm, measured, and well explained response - which some of yours were and some of yours weren't. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Linguist, regardless of the nature of your intent, if the admins active at UAA explain to you that your actions are getting in the way of them performing their work then you need to stop. It doesn't matter if you are trying to be helpful if you are ultimately impeding the work of admins at an administrators noticeboard. As Rob notes above "if a non-admin would like to process WP:UAA block requests, RfA is that way". Surely there are other areas of Wikipedia that could benefit from your desire to help? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Mr rnddude and Ponyo: Thanks for your responses. I understand what you are saying. My refusal to listen to Beeblebrox pretty much stemmed from the way they behaved towards me. First off, after I disagreed with two of their declines at UAA (one was a misunderstanding on my part, but the other was a "Wait until the user edits" decline on a username that contained an attack on a named person), the user quickly responded with a sarcastic reply [34] and then went onto the talk page and said they were "tired of being countermanded by me". [35] This was where I began disregarding their comments, with the "groan" edit summary, and what seemed like a demand that I stop. When I saw these edit summaries [36] [37] [38] I just wasn't interested anymore. As far as I'm going to do whatever I like on Wikipedia, as long as it adheres to policy and I will continue to decline requests as I see fit is concerned, not a great way for me to respond, but Beeblebrox said that I was placing the "Being discussed" note on blatant violations, while I didn't see them as immediately blatant as there were no edits that matched the usernames, so we weren't seeing eye to eye. And at this point I just wanted the user to leave me alone. As far as other areas of Wikipedia where I could help out, I have an idea in mind, but UAA is the area I enjoy the most. I will, however, from now on, not decline reports as often as I have been but rather stick to reporting usernames and cleaning the board (removing declined requests and moving pending ones to holding pen, as Beeblebrox suggested), while only declining occasionally when a username is definitely not a blatant vio. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 19:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm certain your enthusiasm is, and will continue to be, welcome in many areas of Wikipedia. Regarding your intent to decline reports at UAA, I would suggest that you don't. As with unblock requests, in this case "declining" is an action related to a specific admin action (i.e. you can't "decline" to block when you don't have the ability to block in the first place).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I concede the point about my edit summaries. Until very recently, I hadn't worked UAA in a few years,and I came back to find that the holding pen was a total shambles. Stale reports , some over a month old, were not being removed, declined reports were put in holding, which is just wrong, and there were piles of reports that no admin had replied to at all and had just been shoved in there to die. I took me several hours to get it cleaned up. I've been trying since then to keep it decent condition, and to show by example how it is supposed to be handled, but these things keep happening anyway, and I suppose it made me a bit grumpy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, this is going to be an embarrassing question. We have a holding pen for UAA? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Right here: Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Holding pen RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It's purpose, traditionally, has been to hold reports for a week if the user has a problematic username but hasn't actually edited, where a name may not be a blatant violation but may be indicitative of an intent to disrupt, or if reviewing admins opted to discuss rather than block. In the majority of cases they sit for a week and are then removed. It's a curious fact that every single day many accounts are created that never make a single edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it still okay for me to decline bot-reported false positives? For example ones that are clearly just people's names? Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I figure now may be a good time for me to admit I too have been clerking at UAA. I haven't clerked for a while but as of today, I shall be ceasing all work at UAA and disabling responseHelper. I understand that my actions were completely inappropriate; please accept my apologies. Thanks, Patient Zero^talk 20:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to reiterate there are a number of things non-admins can do at UAA that are helpful, such as removing declined reports that have sat for a while, moving anything marked "wait" to the holding pen, and reviewing older reports in the holding pen (if they have no edits in a week or so they can just be removed). Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Would I be better off doing that Beeblebrox? Patient Zero^talk 10:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: I don't see any harm in it. That sort of clerking doesn't add anything to the noticeboard, it's merely moving reports to where they should be when they can't be dealt with immediately, so the noticeboard doesn't get clogged.

@Beeblebrox: I apologise for my first reply to this thread, as I was still bitter at that time. I've taken time to review this situation, and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that your actual requests were made in good faith and were reasonable, and that it was wrong of me to rubbish them. While I don't agree with everything you have said, I do understand how non-admin clerking can be problematic. From now on, I will stick to the holding pen clerking. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 14:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we're all on the same page, and I can see that I could've handled this a little better myself. Thanks to both of you, and everyone who took the time to comment here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: To offer some perspective on this issue, Linguist111 reminds me of myself when reflecting my somewhat-recent past. When I began clerking at AIV as a non-admin, I honestly felt that what I was doing was helpful and that I had the experience from years of vandal fighting to save admins time by endorsing clear-cut reports that need blocking, and declining obvious reports that absolutely don't. It exposed me to a new area of vandalism; I wasn't just kicking off reports to AIV anymore... I was now going through diffs, looking at talk page warnings, checking timestamps and making sure warnings were left appropriately, and judging whether or not others' reports were good. I was learning a lot, and I thought what I was doing was unique and helpful and that they'd be seen as a smart way of helping that no-one else thought of doing before. I was eventually told that the clerking was disruptive on the AIV talk page, and it really sucked to hear that. It wasn't just because I felt bad for inadvertently causing admins to spend more time because of my clerking, but also because I felt that what I was doing was the right thing. Of course, now that I'm on the other side of the "admin fence", I understand exactly why my clerking was disruptive... but I also completely understand how Linguist111 could feel the same way with his clerking at WP:UAA. If he thought the same way that I did, he was interested in expanding his experience and wanted to branch out into an admin area that he enjoys participating in, like I did at AIV and how I enjoy vandal fighting. I'm not saying that what Linguist111 was doing wasn't disruptive... I'm saying that I completely understand Linguist111's thoughts behind his clerking. He felt that they were entirely in good faith and that he was being a net positive in UAA. I made the same mistakes too. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment on comments: It may be a little brash for me to say anything here, but I have found Linguist to be helpful, but I do agree with everyone else above. The clerking should be left to admins and users involved in the reports. The non-admin clerking is kind of annoying. A possibility would to be a new system set up in which we could turn this into a SPI-like system, but now that I think of it, that's a bad idea...Anyways, I agree with everything above. Clerking should be left to admins. TJH2018talk 05:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Problematic Academic Dishonesty by Keysanger

A problem is ongoing at the article Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru) with User:Keysanger. On March 2016, the article's move request went in favor of the actual title of a 19th century treaty (see [39]). The titling of this article has been a problem since its creation (see redirects [40]); in fact, in 2011, Alex Harvey commented on the lack of neutrality of titles such as "Secret Treaty of Alliance" (see [41]). In spite of the move request, Keysanger refuses to drop the stick and continues to push for the inclusion of the title "Secret Treaty of Alliance" (see talk page discussion [42] and article edit history [43]).

While this might appear to be a content dispute, it is far more serious than it appears at a cursory look. You see, Keysanger is not only usually incomprehensible when writing in English, but he also has a tendency to misinterpret sources and use this misinterpretation to push false information in articles related to Peru-Chile relations (this includes War of the Pacific, Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly, and the current Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru)). With regards to the last one, a case in point is Chile's expansionism. To cite one author, "Argentine fears of Chilean expansionism and preemptive attack were well-founded. Official records show that Chilean leaders were, indeed, contemplating such options against their still militarily inferior neighbor. Chile combined ambition with military might" (Joao Resende-Santos, Neorealism, States, and the Modern Mass Army, p. 225). Another author writes, "Chile's expansionist policy had its greatest success during the Pacific War (1879-1884) when it divested Peru and Bolivia of their mining regions in the south" (Zylberberg & Monterichard, "An Abortive Attempt to Change Foreign Policy," in Why Nations Realign, ed. KJ Holsti).

However, Keysanger assures us that to discuss Chilean expansionism is "POV" ([44]).

Returning to the title, Keysanger affirms that the article has another name ([45] & [46]). Two different users had already disagreed with Keysanger (@Nizolan and Music1201: [47]). However, Keysanger now uses 8 sources to support his position. The issue is that these sources, unsurprisingly, actually do not support Keysanger—meaning that Keysanger is purposely misusing sources, which is a serious offense. For example, reading page 127 of Davis and Finan's Latin American Diplomatic History, the only mention of the treaty that we find is the following: "rumor persisted of a secret treaty of alliance between Peru and Bolivia against Chile". Another example, reading page 264 of Keen and Haynes' A History of Latin America, we find the following text: "Peru and Bolivia had negotiated a secret treaty in 1874 providing for military alliance in the event either power went to war with Chile". While both sources indicate that the treaty was secret, a point which is not disputed (see "The Treaty of Defensive Alliance was a secret defense pact"), neither source supports the claim that there is an alternative title to the treaty. Keysanger is clearly misusing sources to support a false claim.

Moreover, Keysanger has spread this misuse of sources into other articles as well. See War of the Pacific as an example ([48]).

The article on the War of the Pacific is a total mess, again largely due to Keysanger's misuse of sources. For instance, historians who write on the War of the Pacific will tell you that "The War of the Pacific, which began in 1879, was a struggle between Chile on the one side and Bolivia and Peru on the other for control of rich nitrate and guano deposits in the provinces of Atacama and Tarapaca. Altough Atacama belonged to Bolivia and Tarapaca to Peru, Chile had invested heavily in both, and all three countries viewed the resources of these provinces as providing a solution to their desperate financial problems" (Cain and Hopkins, British Imperialism: 1688-2015, p. 286). Even the Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that "War of the Pacific, Spanish Guerra del Pacífico, (1879–83), conflict involving Chile, Bolivia, and Peru, which resulted in Chilean annexation of valuable disputed territory on the Pacific coast. [...] The territory contained valuable mineral resources, particularly sodium nitrate" ([49]).

However, Keysanger disagrees with this economic interpretation of the conflict, particularly when related to Chile. As User:Dentren could probably explain in greater detail, Keysanger has shaped the article to lessen the focus on Chile's economic interests (please read his version on the causes of the war). You can also more clearly see Keysanger's manipulation of the article through his edits ([50], [51]). In fact, at one point the article had a subsection focusing on the economic causes of the conflict, but Keysanger deleted this section and merged it into the current "causes of the war" section where he minimizes the conflict's economic reasons (see [52]).

This entirely absurd situation has spanned several years. A WP:AN/I case has already been previously been filed about Keysanger (see [53]); but the article ban proposal did not have enough support then. Several users have attempted to help resolve the problem; @Neil P. Quinn, Robert McClenon, Darkness Shines, Cloudaoc, Wee Curry Monster, and KoshVorlon:. I honestly have no idea how this can be finally resolved. For how long more must this problem with Keysanger continue before the Wikipedia Community does something about this user's irrational behavior and academic dishonesty?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 09:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• User MarshalN20 has been once blocked from editing articles of the History of Latin America after an exhaustive analysis of his behaviour because, as the Arbitration Committee stated: MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct ([54] [55][56]). Please, see more in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History
• He promised not to edit articles related to the War of the Pacific: I would just like to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon ([57]). You may know why he had to state that.
• He has began again with his POV treatment of the article about an Alliance of Peru and Bolivia. He tries to conceal that the treaty is also called "secret treaty" and to blame a "Chilean expansionism" as the only a cause of the war.
• Regarding the content dispute, I can only repeat what I wrote in the discussion page of the article:

Robert N. Burr, in By Reason Or Force: Chile and the Balancing of Power in South America, 1830-1905, a often cited ouvre about History of Chile, has a special chapter beginning at page 124 with the name "The Secret Treaty Between Peru and Bolivia".

William Jefferson Denis, in his valuable "Documentary History of the Tacna Arica Dispute" published by the University of Iowa Studies in the Social Sciences, has compiled 90 treaties, memorandum, letters, official declarations, etc, etc, about the War of the Pacific. In the index of the compilation, page 5, as well as in page 56, at the beginnig of the text given as introduction to the content, he names the treaty Treaty of Defensive Alliance or "Secret Treaty" between Peru and Bolivia, 1873".

So, there is another name, much more common than the vacuousness of "Treaty of Defensive Alliance". By WP:OTHERNAMES this alternative must be there.

• How serious is MarshalN20 with his statements? Can he support them with reliable sources?: No. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Undue weight and original research in the Causes of the War of the Pacific Both, Dentren and MarshalN20 declined to present any arguments to the discussion. --Keysanger (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I was indeed topic banned by the Arbitration Committee for editing in the article Paraguayan War (an entirely different subject; see [58]). However, on August 2015 (over a year ago), the topic ban was lifted ([59]). Not only is it distasteful for Keysanger to bring it up now, but this is an unacceptable use of the ARBCOM to harass and cast aspersions. Keysanger has been previously warned by KoshVorlon, WCM, and Cambalachero to drop the stick on this matter. Keysanger's refusal to drop it only further confirms that this is a behavioral problem, not just a content dispute.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It was about a year ago that I made a three-part recommendation here concerning the disruptive editing of the War of the Pacific: first, topic-bans on Keysanger and MarshalN20, whom I thought shouldn't be editing in the same article (and interaction bans don't work); second, formal mediation; third, Community General Sanctions. It is apparent that I was too optimistic in thinking that formal mediation would resolve this dispute that has been dragging on for years. I still recommend Community General Sanctions. (I also think that a previous ArbCom defaulted in failing to establish ArbCom discretionary sanctions for Latin American history, but that is a matter of the past.) I didn't study the details of the war and the edit wars over the war enough to agree or disagree with the allegations that Keysanger is misusing sources. (I do know that Keysanger prefers Chilean sources, and they have a different view than Peruvian sources. That is of course characteristic of battleground editing in Wikipedia about any historical battleground. I don't expect Indian sources to agree with Pakistani sources, or Israeli sources to agree with Arab sources either.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hateful redirects

I just encountered the redirect God Is America's Terror, which redirects to the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. This seemed inappropriate and I doubted between {{db-attack}} and just WP:RfD. I decided to have a peek at the creators history and found many similar redirects, created at a considerable pace:

• Antichrist Obama
• God Blew Up the Shuttle
• God Hates Fag Enablers
• Fags Doom Nations
• Thank God for IEDs
• You're Going to Hell
• God Is America's Terrorist
• et caetera ad nauseam.

The editor in question, one Bobby H. Heffley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing since 2006, so it's not a newbie mistake. Kleuske (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Aren't those actual slogans from the church? Would it make sense to have them redirect if someone was searching for a particular phrase but didn't know the actual name of the church? It doesn't seem malicious to me. --Tarage (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; these are all plausible search terms if a reader had seen the Church's signs but didn't know what they were called, I don't see an issue here. Sam Walton (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I note "Antichrist Obama" has been deleted as an attack page, so the limit is naming people, apparently. I appreciate the input. Kleuske (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think every bigoted slogan needs a redirect. If there is some evidence of extensive references in RS sources for a given slogan, and I concede there will be some that can make that claim, then a redirect seems reasonable. But some of these are not well known and appear gratuitous. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will say that the number of redirects might be a bit excessive (currently ~30). Sam Walton (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Too many of these are obscure and not well enough known to justify keeping them. I am going to start going through the list and anything that doesn't sound familiar or bring up significant mainstream RS hits I am sending to RfD. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform/advertising redirect for or by fringe groups. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

30 is too much, but I just wanted to make the point that I don't think this is malicious. Over-zealous? Sure. Malicious, not by a mile. --Tarage (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that all of the slogans and sayings redirects need to be deleted. Wikipedia is not Google, and moreover the slogans and sayings are not unique to one individual or entity. It appears that most of Bobby H. Heffley's wiki career since 2009 has been creating redirects, and that all of the recent ones are inappropriate. I'm going to suggest that he occupy himself otherwise than creating redirects, and if the problem persists, a topic ban on redirects is in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe they are intentionally inappropriate. AGF please. A topic ban is not warranted yet. Has anyone actually talked to this user yet? --Tarage (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If you check their talkpage you'll find that they have never responded to a message left on their page. If we can't get a response from Bobby, and they continue creating inappropriate redirects, then a TBAN may be in order. It's too soon for a TBAN right now though. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The editor may not even know they HAVE a talk page. How about a short 31 hour block to try to get their attention? --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course they know they have a talk page. They get orange banners and increasingly high red numbers at the top of every edit page every time they get a message. There's no reason to block them because they haven't been asked any question on their talk page, or been told to stop anything until this ANI was filed. If they keep creating redirects of slogans and quotations, then they should be topic-banned, and if they continue after that, a short block. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you know how many people ignore their unread e-mails or missed calls? I'm only suggesting a block ahead of a topic ban because a block is temporary, where as a topic ban can be very hard to fight. Either way, I don't think it's as heinous as people are making it out to be. --Tarage (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think think their bigoted slogans need to be re-directs. It's called common decency. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 09:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Update Last night I reviewed all of his WBC redirects and sent most of them to RfD. A few were so over the top I tagged for CSD per G-10 and they have already been deleted. However several were IMO legitimate because they have been much referenced in RS sources and are widely understood to be connected to the WBC. Those were left alone. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think any sanction should be taken against this user (if at all) until he logs in again. He hasn't logged in since prior to this ANI filing and since prior to all of the current talk-page notifications of SPEEDY, RfD, etc. I imagine he will get the message when he logs back in. Softlavender (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• I support their deletion. Most are actual slogans and fairly unlikely search terms. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"All changes are checked and confirmed by his family and lawyer"

Weavil-blues (talk · contribs) has posted unsourced biographical content several times, and included in edit summaries mention of the subject's family and lawyer. I've left a warning and notice pertaining to WP:LEGAL. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no legal threat. Unsourced though is a separate issue. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I'm pretty sure I've seen accounts blocked for little more than using the 'L' word--the implication is that an attorney is involved and approves of content, or not. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As well, the new editor is objecting to content that touches upon WP:BLP concerns. It's hard to know for sure, when the sources are Norwegian. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Most of them will be reachable via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway, I imagine, or you could try Yngvadottir or Bishonen (yes, I know Norwegians and Swedes are Entirely Different Things but near enough). I'd recommend letting this lie, to be honest; to say that Helge Solum Larsen is of marginal interest is an understatement (the most views it's had in any day this month is six), and as long as the page isn't actually inaccurate there are much more important battles to fight. Realistically, we are not going to block someone just for saying the word "lawyer". ‑ Iridescent 23:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

(adding) And I don't quite see what the supposed BLP concerns are; this man is dead, and nobody else is named in the article (other than a couple of party figures issuing formal statements, the contents of which is presumably not in doubt). ‑ Iridescent 23:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The 'psychiatric ward' business, and I referred to BLP since it covers subjects who are recently deceased. But I don't have a desire to nibble at this, and appreciate your insight. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Quickly, as I have to leave for work imminently, or I would have made my main post on the article talk page: I see other differences between the two versions that may be at issue. I am not Norwegian :-) I'm going to abuse the ping system to call on 3 I know who are: Geschichte, Arsenikk, Iselilja. And I'll check in from work if I have a chance. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat from Riz Story & team

Legal threat: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABondegezou&type=revision&diff=750274353&oldid=748987902

I've been watching Riz Story for a while and tried a big clean up of unsourced self-promotion recently (edits on the morning of 17 November). An IP editor reverted; I and others again removed the material. While I was away from Wikipedia, this exploded with an edit war between the IP editor and several others. I got the legal threat as above and vandalism of my user page. The article got semi-protected and the IP editor, who appears to be Mr Story or people connected thereto, created User:Meopa, which waded in with stuff like this, this and this, which then led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riz Story. He may have previously edited as User:RizStory.

IPs:

• 2605:e000:60dc:400:1e87:2cff:fec8:7f83
• 2605:e000:60dc:400:e07c:6c9a:cfb3:1cf
• 2605:e000:60dc:400:8054:61cc:1ce8:8a0a

Pinging User:Primefac, who's been trying to help the situation. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• I was honestly hoping this would blow over in between going to bed and waking up. Guess not. Meopa has a serious axe to grind and refuses to listen to anyone's advice. I don't know if this is ego or what, but I spent over an hour with them on IRC yesterday and got exactly nowhere. They definitely need take a break and stop editing their own page (and the AFD), but that's unlikely without admin intervention. There are proper ways to edit an article about yourself, but this isn't one of them. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Sure looks like a legal threat. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It was just a king-sized bluff rather than a legal threat... until the last sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • What is in the first link is not even close to a legal threat. This aside, the remaining behaviour appears sufficiently distruptive as to require action. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Note User:Meopa has been softblocked for sharing accounts, but now User:Riz Story is active. I will be AGF and hoping that they're all finally using their own usernames. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• comment I closed the AfD early as delete on the basis of self advertising by the subject and his staff. Anyone else is welcome to start an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:COI's the first thing that comes to mind. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 17:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: Riz Story has been deleted. I wondered if disruption would spread to Anyone (Story's band), but it hasn't appeared to. User:Meopa has been blocked. User:Riz Story hasn't edited for a few days. (User:RizStory is long inactive.) I don't know if Mr Story and team understand what's happened (Primefac's laudable efforts notwithstanding). While things could kick off again, for now it appears the saga is over. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

IP PRODding article(s) and user subpage(s)?

2606:6000:63d1:3c00:e17f:9fd2:2be7:5e10 (talk · contribs)

The user accused me of creating an "attack page" here, which by itself is patently absurd, but he also apparently PRODded the Toshiba article, which makes me think this has nothing to do with me and my old sock accounts but is rather just trolling. The template on my user page has already been reverted by User:MRD2014, as was the one to the Toshiba article, but I'm concerned that if this is a dynamic IP (I don't know how to check) they may have already succeeded in getting some pages speedied.

Anyone know how we can check this?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This IP address is probably evading a block placed on 2602:306:379d:1aa0::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which was blocked by Ponyo. IP's in that range would create talk pages in that range by adding bogus speedy deletion templates that transcluded other user pages and templates, which the IP above did on Toshiba. —MRD2014 (Happy Thanksgiving!) 12:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Canvasing at AFD by User:Piotrus

Piotrus (talk · contribs) is canvasing for AFD's they created, purposely asking a single user (SwisterTwister (talk · contribs)) they know will be sympathetic to their case to intervene at their AFDs.[60] I have no opinion on if the specific articles should or should not be deleted, but canvasing like Piotrus has just done is disruptive and needs immediate administrative attention. Because SwisterTwister is involved, and past experiences by many here have shown that anything involving SwisterTwister gets lost on talk pages, this report is starting directly at ANI. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"Past experiences by many here have shown that anything involving SwisterTwister gets lost on talk pages." Seriously? Try to minimize the drama, instead of raising it. Even if discussion "gets lost on talk pages," it doesn't mean you shouldn't try it. Anyways, per WP:CANVASS, I'm not sure if there is a deletionism history between Piotrus and ST. I do see, however that ST did vote for deletion on both articles. I suggest to Piotrus not to make posts on users' talk pages, but I don't believe anything big would come out of this discussion. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't want to pile on ST here, and I don't think that he did anything wrong by commenting on the AfDs in question and that he acted in good faith. The fact that Piotrus only commented on ST's talk pages when ST doesn't seem to have any connection to the articles other than a general pro-deletion stance on many articles does suggest to me that this might have been something not in the spirit of WP:CANVASS, however. I don't really think there is much to be done here. The articles were relisted yesterday and have another week to run. ST might want to strike his !votes as a good will gesture, but I hardly think it is necessary as he very likely could have commented on them anyway, and probably would have had the same opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Okay seriously the hate threads for ST need to stop I'm sick and tired of seeing this constantly popping up. Honestly ST's edits scream WP:NOTNOTHERE more than anything, we all have our own ways of doing things, and some people have different interpretations of guidelines/policies. While I don't agree with the canvassing issue, I don't see why ST is to be accused of anything. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Asking for input from a single user is not necessarily canvassing. If AFDs were votes (and they aren't) then it might theoretically qualify as vote-stacking, but only a very minor form of it because it's only going to stack the !votes by one. Additionally, since in those case no one was arguing that the pages should not be deleted, then seeking outside input in any form should be commended. This isn't like Piotrus saw consensus turning against him and decided to ask for "input" from someone likely to take his side. I personally hate the "if a proposal has one proponent and is unopposed, then there is no consensus and the status quo remains" school of closing, and half the time seems like it is used as an excuse for non-admins (and even brand new accounts) who aren't able to enforce the actual consensus to run up their edit counts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: since you seem to understand what canvassing is and isn't, maybe you can comment on my post about Ltbuni earlier here at ANI, either way. Ltbuni and I have resolved our differences, but I'm surprised that almost nobody has commented on the canvassing issue, to the extent that I'm not even sure I understand what it is anymore. -Darouet (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that: if it becomes an issue again, I'll raise it again. Otherwise, it may be best to let sleeping dogs lie. -Darouet (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• In my many years of experience with Piotrus, I've found him a very independent person, and I cannot imagine him canvassing anybody about anything. He has sometimes notified me of discussions that he thinks might interest me, and I agree with him only a little more frequently than I disagree, and with respect to AfDs and prods, in both directions. . DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• WP:VOTESTACK clearly specifies a plurality of users. If Piotrus is messaging only a single user I see no violation of policy here. -- œ^™ 04:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate" has nothing to do with multiple users. If there is a reason for notification of ST other than ST's uniformly strong deletionist stance, this is fine. But given ST is probably the most active deltionist around right now, it's not unreasonable to question the notifications if the relationship between ST and the articles isn't at least somewhat apparent. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but where's the evidence that (1) Piotrus believe ST would take the same stance as them and (2) that this stance would be controversial otherwise and that the pages should not be deleted? The diff provided clearly refers to AFDs that had not received any opposition. It is pretty clear that if Piotrus wanted to influence the outcome at all, it was only to avoid the stupid "only one person !voted: status quo remains". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm merely pushing back on the idea that contacting only one person isn't canvassing. But as far as (1) goes, are you familiar with ST? If Piotrus wasn't fairly certain that ST would take a stance for deletion, it's because Piotrus isn't paying attention. As far as (2) goes, I don't think being correct is an exception to WP:CANVASS. Hobit (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There are different kinds of canvassing. Only contacting one user on their talk page is never spamming, campaigning or stealth canvassing, and in this case there was clearly no vote-stacking either because the known tendency of ST had nothing to do with it (if it did, he would have been contacted before the AFD was at risk of being closed as keep by default). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Eh, im with Hobit here. ST is basically the strongest deletionist on this project at this time (and I don't say that as a pejorative. I have never had any bad interactions with ST personally and think that some people here need to cut him a lot more slack.) It might not be a technical violation of WP:CANVASS, as I said above, it seems like it's against the spirit of it. I don't think there's anything formal that needs to be done here, but only contacting ST seems like going fishing for a delete !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really. The AFD was uncontested. Even if it was "fishing for a delete !vote", this would have only served to avoid a weird flaw in the system where bad closers interpret an uncontested proposal as "no consensus". I have seen this done with GARs and RFCs, and with AFDs the problem is worse because non-admins are not technically able to close them the way they probably should. Piotrus probably regretted not PRODding the articles in the first place, but he should be commended (not punished) for thinking to open an AFD discussion for the community instead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed that he actually did PROD the pages, and they were de-PRODded by one SPA and one near-SPA with only seven previous edits. The action of disrupting the PROD but not actually joining the subsequent AFD discussions (apparently because one doesn't have a valid keep argument) is obvious gaming the system. I wouldn't frankly have blamed Piotrus for asking for these accounts to be blocked and then re-PRODding the articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ueh. I don't don't know what kind of axe 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk · contribs) has with ST, since I doubt it is with me as to the best of my knowledge I have never interacted with him before. Given that as observed, those were no-discussion AfDs, I can hardly imagine what kind of nefarious plot someone has to suspect they have to defend Wikipedia against to report this here. It does, however, illustrate the stupidity of CANVASS, Wikipedia's worst policy ever. If you want something done here without someone complaining, off-wiki communication sadly remains the way to do it, because transparency invites such witch hunts and waste of time. Glad that cooler heads prevail here, through I fear to think what would have happened if I messaged another person. For the record, I messaged ST because in my last year at AfDs he seems like the most active commenter, and he was the first editor to come to my mind when I thought "those AfDs seemed to slipped everyone's attention, whom do I know who might be interested in commenting there?". Good that I couldn't think of a second editor to ask, huh? On a more constructive note, see a related discussion at this page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Eh, find a neutral forum for such a request. Asking one editor, especially one I can predict the vote of without seeing the AfD, article, or anything else, is probably a poor choice. And yeah, it's easy to use backchannels to get around WP:CANVASS, but if you get caught it's a big deal. I prefer to think 95%+ of everyone doesn't do that. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Find me such a forum and I'd be very appreciative. I did propose a creation of an automatic watchlistable listing of relists at the discussion above, but I lack the tech know-how to create it myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
      • A good point. The main AfD talk page maybe? Or pick on a random admin perhaps? But yeah, there aren't a lot of good places for doing this, I agree. But you picked the editor most likely to agree to delete something of anyone I know of here. That's a bit problematic. Hobit (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Looks like this complaint got some attention for those AfD's. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed, with 100% of people agreeing with me and ST. I wonder why the op has not voted to prevent this nefarious collusion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• It was exactly two AfDs, that had failed to generate any responses. He hasn't done it before or since: [61]. While I think choosing SwisterTwister was a bad idea (better a neutral admin's talkpage that has a lot of watchers, or a WikiProject talkpage), and I would censure him for repeating this kind of request to ST, I don't see anything wrong here. Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I largely agree (I'd claim there was something wrong, but nothing major and as long as it's not repeated it's not worth worrying about). Hobit (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I honestly still am not seeing how it was the wrong thing to do to begin with, so saying that "as long as it's not repeated" it should be overlooked doesn't seem like the right way to look at it. Again, the SPA and near-SPA that tried to game the system by filibustering the original PRODs were actually a much more serious problem, and the tendency to close uncontroversial proposals as "no consensus" is, while not a serious problem in general, still worse than Piotrus's actions in trying to avoid it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The issue is who he chose to canvass -- a well-known deletionist. If he had posted somewhere neutral like a neutral admin's talkpage that has lots of watchers, or a WikiProject talkpage, that would have been fine. Or if there were actual SPAs clearly trying to influence the decision and the AfDs were heading in a non-neutral direction, he could have even posted on ANI or AN, asking for more eyes. Softlavender (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Meh. If Piotrus wasn't clearly the least guilty party here, if there had been even a single "keep" !vote before he "chose to canvass a well-known deletionist", or if he had done it right after opening the AFDs rather than right before they were due to be closed, I would probably agree with you. But the fact is that in this case the articles should have been deleted one week after the initial PRODs, without any need for "canvassing", and the only reason this didn't work out was that the articles' creators tried to game the system by filibustering the original PRODs. The resulting AFDs should have ended with "No opposition; treat as PROD and delete", but you and I both know that sometimes this is not the case and someone (sometimes not even an admin) comes along and says "No consensus to delete; keep per status quo". Yes, ideally Piotrus would have posted to a WikiProject or a neutral admin. But that is irrelevant here because he wasn't canvassing or trying to influence the outcome of the "discussion" -- he was trying to keep the broken system from screwing itself. The whole principal of PROD is that if any Wikipedian in good faith believes an article should be deleted, then they can propose as much and if after a certain amount of time has passed no one has expressed opposition then the page will be deleted. AFD, in theory, functions on the same principle -- a Wikipedian in good faith nominates the page for deletion, and if no one opposes after a certain length of time the page will be deleted. The only problem is that sometimes it doesn't work that way because closers are careless. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

66.87.151.122

Disrupting arbcom election. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Pretty obvious block evasion, blocked for a week. Acroterion (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Should we semiprotect Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:50.201.7.90

His edit summaries are a bit disconcerting to say the least. This edit to Curaçao (a nation made up of predominantly Afro-Caribbeans) is "samebananaforeverymonkey" repeated. This edit to Contraceptive Use in Bangladesh has an edit summary containing "3 basic explanation of your fucking sourcing 4 pointing out that this is utterly non-contextualized data and that you all are utter fuckhead retards." There are a lot of inappropriate comments like this, but the first one is entirely inappropriate for an edit summary. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours - the edit summaries aren't remotely acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User continues to use inappropriate edit summaries for his talk page, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A50.201.7.90&type=revision&diff=751314647&oldid=751310748 --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake Editor BronHiggs actually targeting people and organisations

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

---

The editor under the handle BronHiggs (talk · contribs) has searched wikipedia for mentions of specific individuals and organisations and targeted these with criticisms and requests for quick deletion. The articles are many years old, and one of them is an obituary of a famous Australian. Bronwyn Higgs is not a genuine editor, she is a stooge put up by an unknown entity. Please have her editorship rights revoked, and her requests removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.27.236 (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please provide evidence. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 07:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let me fix that for you: Real editor BronHiggs has searched Wikipedia for copyright violations and inaccuracies in articles related to Australian topics, and notified other editors about these problems. Some of these articles are many years old, which makes one aghast at how long such problems have persisted without notice. We should be glad that BronHiggs has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. You're welcome. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

While pinging @BronHiggs: so that they know about this thread, I gotta ask: how do you know that BronHiggs is a stooge of an unknown entity, rather than being an unknown entity themselves? Some unknown entities are very dedicated and resourceful, and don't delegate all their efforts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Lets see some evidence. I have worked with this editor and have seen no indication of bad faith at all - some lack of understanding and frustration over how Wikipedia works but what looks like a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia and a deep well of expert knowledge. Recommend this be closed as a malicious report unless evidence (diffs) are provided. The editor who is upset is Mpbalogh. They have a COI [62] and opened this as an anon but have been discussing this on BronHiggs talk page logged in [63] (Edited and re-signed so the new mention works) Jbh^Talk 15:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• In addition to my comments on the Talk page of the article 'History of Australian Marketing Research' could it please be taken into consideration that the editor who created this page, a person by the name of Kymmarie (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kymmarie), created or substantially contributed to a number of other pages featuring the McNair Ingenuity company and/or the McNair family between 2008 and 2009. These pages include, but are not confined to: Ian McNair [bio]; Mc Nair Gallup Poll, McNair Ingenuity Research [company], Psepholograph [an instrument used in market research that appears to have been developed by McNair], as well as a number of other pages dedicated to reporting the results of specific polls such as Recycle Our Water McNair, Happiness Index, Energy Sources McNair Gallup Poll and Nuclear Power Plants McNair Gallup Poll. (Pages dedicated to specific poll results have all since been deleted). The editor, Kymmarie does not appear to have engaged in any editing unless it involves the McNair family. The editor concerned has been provided with repeated warnings about posting content that is promotional in character, that fails to maintain a neutral point of view or that has no real claim to notability. However, my recommendation for deletion of the article was not based on this history. Instead it was primarily based on two issues: (1) The content was substantially based on material copied from a page on the AMRS website (see https://www.amsrs.com.au/about/history-of-market-research-in-australia) with a 96% similarity score on the Copyright Violation report and (2) Only one paragraph out of a total of five paragraphs that made up the article was actually concerned with Australia - the rest of it was a highly selective history of social research in England. Of those three sentences, two were principally concerned with the market research company that became known as McNair or McNair-Ingenuity. I questioned whether Wikipedia needed a new article on Australian market research history when just three of its sentences actually focussed on the Australian experience. BronHiggs (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• As an unknown entity and a fake editor, I am offended by this attack on my people. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, you can´t make yourself a spokesperson for all unknown entities and a fake editors, that is offensive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am a spokespiece for my dark lord in his watery slumber, so if anyone can be a spokesman fo-Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!!!

Sorry. I get a little carried away sometime. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If I can ask a serious question. WP:BOOMERANG? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 17:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I am very curious about the process. Someone has made a complaint about me and it has sat here for the past 5 days. Is the complaint investigated? Is the issue ever resolved? Or, does it just sit here indefinitely so that others can draw whatever conclusions they will about me, and about the complaint? BronHiggs (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Admin attention needed at Organizational behavior and its talk page

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

---

There are two editors engaged in a slow edit war there. I've been trying to get them to work together for a couple of days now, but to no avail. I've seen lies, pointy edits, original research, personal attacks and a general battleground mentality on the part of both editors. I'll leave the content discussion there, but there are certainly some behavioral problems as well. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Would it be possible for you to file a report at WP:ANEW? Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 10:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There are more issues than the edit war. There is a new editor who consistently assumes bad faith, and is engaging in most of the rest of the behavioral problems. There is also a more experienced editor who seems to have established ownership of the article and is unwilling to work with anyone (partially justifying the new editor's assumption of bad faith, but still). They both need guidance from someone capable of doing more than talking to them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't DRN 2.0. Admins aren't super-users with some kind of magic dispute resolution powers; what administrative action are you requesting here? ‑ Iridescent 17:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question: the clear threat of sanctions if things don't calm down. From someone capable of imposing them. I have made it clear what could happen if things escalate, but WP being what it is, I'm not sure anyone will simply take my word for it. An admin could be more persuasive. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• If you are reporting the behavior of two editors, I think you need to name the editors in question here, and also notify them of this discussion on their talkpages (not on the article's talkpage). Also, ANI isn't WP:DR. If two editors are locked in an edit-war or an unresolved dispute, then utilize one or more of WP:RfC; WP:3O; or another form of WP:DR; or WP:ANEW (even if it's a slo-mo edit war) but warn each of them first on their talk pages. If there are behavioral problems, I think you should note them here and note which editor is doing what. (Lastly, it looks to me as if the issues could possibly be resolved if editors including you stick strictly to content and policy rather than commenting on other editors and their behavior.)

  By the way a DRN request was filed 4 hours ago by Happydaise; here is the current link: [64]. Offhand, given the consistently childish tone, lack of capitalization, game-playing, knowledge of Wikipedia, and the beeline to disrupting this article, I'd have to agree with the other editor that Happydaise is definitely a returning editor who is here only to be disruptive. The past usernames proffered by the other editor are: Mrm7171, Psych999, Mattbrown69, and Docsim, a couple of which have been blocked for socking. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I was given a link by another user to where Happydaise had opened a DR case. The issue was that they named other editors without notifying them.

The reason I'm not naming names is because I am attempting to be as neutral as possible. I would prefer an admin take a look and decide how to proceed. However, in my opinion, sanctions should not be necessary, merely the credible threat of them. Given what I've seen, I believe both editors can set their differences aside long enough to find a good path forward, I just need some help convincing them that they should. I have placed a notice on that page linking back to here. I chose not to notify them on their talk pages because I'm not sure if one of the editors has disenganged, and if they have, I don't want to draw them back in.

All in all, I'm trying to approach this with a light touch, apologies if I'm stumbling in that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think if you want "credible threats of sanctions" you need to name names here and also notify the editors on their talk pages. If all you want is dispute resolution, then please withdraw this thread and proceed to some form of WP:DR. Softlavender (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It isn't clear what the filing party is requesting. Blocks? Of which editor or editors? Page protection? Is there any conduct issue other than edit-warring? If so, what? If not, edit-warring can be reported at WP:ANEW and page protection requested at WP:RFPP. What this vague request is doing is putting the request for moderated dispute resolution into limbo, because it is also pending here. Please either specify what you want, or withdraw this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - User:MjolnirPants - In my opinion, the best way to approach an issue with a light touch is somewhere else than WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon why don't you strike me from the DR and move forward with it? I'm sure the lies, the assumptions of bad faith, the edit warring and the ownership won't muck things up at all. Also, you'll have to take it upon yourself to make sure everyone's properly notified. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 user inserting "Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" into random University articles

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

---

Twice since coming back, I've noticed edits like this and this appear. Massive inserts to articles on Universities, a long rant about the ACA, and an edit summary indicating that this is somehow being suppressed by the Obama Administration along with phone numbers to call, one to a physicians office. Both IPs that I've found track to a Verizon broadband connection in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. They tend to get reverted quickly but I'm wondering if this is a sockpuppet that I haven't heard about. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Might be worth opening up an SPI, seems to be a bot. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I decided to google the content just to see the source and - it's from Wikipedia, the Simple English version of the ACA page. Good job suppressing that info. Of course it was added by another IP from guess where. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

How have we not caught this before now? Well done, Mr. Vernon. :-)

There's nothing good coming from the 173.67.160.0/21 range since at least August 1. They're putting that stuff into some interesting and irrelevant places – what Tommy Lee Jones and University of Ljubljana have to do with the ACA is beyond me – so they're up to no good. Blocked the range for one month. If they return, ping me and I'll block them again. That's ridiculous. Katie^talk 12:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this IP block also blocked my access (until I logged in). My ISP is Verizon in Lampeter PA. I wonder if the vandal somehow hacked my Wifi server? I only turned it on for 4 days, and now the wifi goes dark again. -- Theaveng (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

vulnerando derechos de una imagen

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

---

Quiero informar que están vulnerando los derechos de autor de una fotografía en wikipedia. Una fotografía con metadatos de autoría, con marca de agua de autoría ha sido intencionadamente modificada y grabada de nuevo en otro formato sin metadatos, eliminando de la misma cualquier rastro del autor. Esa fotografía se ha subido de nuevo a wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kofi_Lockhart-Adams sin mención alguna en un pie de página o en el título del archivo del autor original de la misma, vulnerando así los derechos de autor. El autor, tras intentar eliminarla o sustituirla, ha visto como de manera aún más radical se han vulnerado sus derechos, eliminando su acceso a los archivos originales de la fotografía y utilizando como archivo la fotografía en la que no hay rastro del autor de la misma. Si ustedes no subsanan de alguna manera este hecho, buscaré cualquier otro medio, para informar al resto de usuarios de las prácticas abusivas por parte de otros usuarios de wikipedia y que wikipedia apoya y protege, vulnerando así cualquier derecho de autoría. El VANDALISMO lo están haciendo ustedes vulnerando mis derechos de autor, eliminando cualquier rastro o mención de autoría de la fotografía utilizada e impidiendo mi acceso a los archivos originales, utilizando uno propio donde no queda rastro del autor de la fotografía. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidimentos (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Lidimentos, who wrote the text above, appears to be objecting that File:Kofi Lockhart-Adams.png is a copyright infringement, even though it's a derivative work of his own upload, File:Kofi lockhart-adams by Lidimentos.jpg, and the derivative work is properly attributed, and it bears the same license as his original upload. Given his edit-warring and his copyfraud here, I've blocked him for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Mass unsourced edits to rap music articles (part two)

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

---

ARtking (talk · contribs) - A few weeks ago I made this report here about User:Rtjfan making mass, unsourced edits to rap music article. The account was blocked, but then user:ARtking created an account and began editing most of the same articles in the same way. Perhaps WP:SCRUTINY applies (if in fact the second account is a sock). Regardless, the new account in make a big mess. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Infinite Block for bad username

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

---

1. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. !!!!!!!!!!have (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. !!!!!!!!!!hello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. !!!!!!!!!!me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are too much accounts that starts with ! character. Most of them are blocked due to vandalism or bad username. For more accounts, see here. --Jerrykim306 (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The ones you listed are over ten years old and have no edits. While having a bad username like this may call for a softblock, or a polite request to change username, doing this for ancient unused accounts would simply be a waste of time. We generally just take care of new and active accounts. If they aren't editing, they aren't hurting anything. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Question about 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.

---

Hello! I'm wondering if it's okay to edit war with someone just because they might be a blocked user? Thanks in advance to any who reply!2605:8D80:485:74E4:DBF9:75FC:684B:D1CA (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:VILLAGEPUMP and WP:TEAHOUSE are intended to raise general questions. So, unless you have some specific situation in mind, either of those would be a better place to ask. If you do have a specific situation in mind, please provide the details and the evidence. Kleuske (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Kleuske: Well, ya... So: User:Sro23 has proven time and again that he's only here to cause drama and not contribute to an encyclopedia. Today, he fought with a "maybe" blocked user (who is not me) at the Fire alarm call box page and justified his edit war with "That's the only reason I need." The thing is, any time I try to leave Wikipedia, he goes and does something he knows will bring me back, thus giving him the edit war (and drama) he craves (cases in point: here and here) so I'm wondering why someone who never contributes: only reverts, tattletales, and brings blocked users back on purpose just to edit war (even when the edit war is 100% detrimental to Wikipedia) is considered an asset?2605:8D80:485:74E4:DBF9:75FC:684B:D1CA (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Starting with (unsubstantiated) claims like "X has proven time and again that he's only here to cause drama and not contribute to an encyclopedia." is definitely a bad idea.

<digging>...

So Sro thinks he's dealing with this sockmaster, and the edit summaries employed by the anon seem to support that (See WP:DUCK). Sro thus reverts based on WP:BANREVERT and, given the evidence, he's right to do so. Moreover, the anon is not only reverted by Sro, but also by @Aloha27: and @Mr. Vernon:, after the article was heavily socked, to the point of page-protection. So, it's the anon who is edit-warring against three other editors and you think Sro might be at fault, here. Kleuske (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec)I've requested page protection of the page in question. If you want to leave Wikipedia, then leave- no one can force you to return unless you wish it, as only you can control your behavior. It takes two to edit war, which isn't justified even if you are correct.(which, frankly, I don't believe) 331dot (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Widr: just blocked the anon for block-evasion. I think we might be done here. Kleuske (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Kleuske: No. I can always get another IP. The question none of you are answering is: sure! Sro can revert based on WP:DENY but... the purpose of that is to make blocked users go away so... Once we're gone... Why does Sro go out of his way to bring us back? It's an interesting question.2605:8D80:4A0:D3DB:17C2:ACA4:47BB:AC16 (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The solution is simple: 'do not come back. Sro can' make you. He's not holding an AK-47 to your head, is he? Kleuske (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sleep time! Night!2605:8D80:4A0:D3DB:17C2:ACA4:47BB:AC16 (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a /64 rangeblock is called for Kleuske (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Dude... there's like a million of those already against me! Stop pretending you have any power! Lol2605:8D80:4A0:D3DB:17C2:ACA4:47BB:AC16 (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a letter to abuse@rogers.com will do the trick. Kleuske (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Comet Ping Pong

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

---

Semiprotect Comet Ping Pong, subject of anonymous conspiracy theories about molested children from a fake news site. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Made this request at the appropriate venue for you. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Kautilya3

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

---

Kautilya3 reverts WP:NPOV violating material on Burhan Wani page. Oversight requested. Lacks neutrality.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:9024:B75A:40CF:3883 (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 action threat from 50.30.100.33

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

---

Edit warring Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park, then just left this on my page threatening legal action. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That's as categorical a legal threat as you're likely to see, short of a writ arriving in the post. Bless :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Anything more I need to do? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Vernon: I'm not an administrator, but I left this message on the IP's Talk Page. Hopefully this clarified a few things for them. DarkKnight2149 00:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:chisme

User:chisme has an improper conduct that is directed at and offensive to me. Why ? Because I kindly tried to refrain user:chisme from imposing his personal opinions that everyone can clearly feel it when you read Talk:André (artist).

Recently he modified on his own talk page, my following notification (cf : [65]) :

I have just notified your behavior in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. I asked if is it right you call me a « bitch ». Again, I am quite patient, open and welcoming of your point of view in spite of your inappropriate behavior. I just want to render the article André (artist) neutral as it should be with an impartial tone. Polaert (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

to

I have just modified your behavior in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. I asked if is it right. Call me a « bitch ». Again, I am a patient, open and welcoming point of view in spiteful behavior. I just want to render André (artist) neutral as an impartial tune. Polaert (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I have formatted these two quotations into templates for clarity, and changed the word "by" to "to". Softlavender (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

What do I need to do to stop this improper conduct ? Thanks for your help --Polaert (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that changing someones comments (especially in this fashion) is anything but WP:CIVIL and flies in the face of WP:TPO. At least a stern warning is in order. However, the comment in which he called you a "waffle-eater's publicity bitch" was made on the French Wikipedia and shouldn't have been imported here, but dealt with on the French Wikipedia (which has similar rules about civility). You raised the same issue at DRN which gives me the impression that you might be WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Kleuske (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

First time I face this kind of behavior. Since 2006, I haven't required help from administrator either in English or in French Wikipedia. So it's why I didn't know in which forum I had to notify user:Chisme's behavior. Polaert (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have collapsed the material transferred interwiki; it does not belong here on EN-wiki, and as Kleuske says, that needs to remain on (or be dealt with on) FR-wiki, not here on EN-wiki. Polaert and Chisme, both of you need to remain civil and collaborative, and Chisme, do not under any circumstances alter another person's post in the way you did here [66]. I've now edited the article in question according to wiki standards; I suggest that the two of you go back to editing other articles and leave each other alone. If you feel the need to edit this article further or discuss on its talk page, do so civilly and refer only to content and policy, not other editors or their behavior. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User constantly edit warring on enneagon and harassing User: Double sharp with multiple IP accounts and user accounts.

A user has been constantly edit warring on the page Enneagon, the user must have gotten into some editing clash with another user Double Sharp because they keep constantly harassing them and pestering them about why they have removed their edits. The offending user seems to have multiple IP's that they edit from because all the IP's follow the same procedure of edit warring and then obsessing over Double Sharp. The IP's that appear to be used under offending editor are, Special:Contributions/88.109.192.184 Special:Contributions/88.109.194.22 Special:Contributions/88.109.203.10 and two indefinitely blocked accounts, Special:Contributions/Hfdfdhhddddhf Special:Contributions/Sdhshjsahsa. | -glove- (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Taking a quick look, this comment from one of the IP addresses is particularly unacceptable. DarkKnight2149 20:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on these edits, it appears these are all socks of User:Becambuisness. Sro23 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Should we move this discussion over to the WP:SPI, then? [67] DarkKnight2149 01:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC) DarkKnight2149 01:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This started (as far as I know) on enneahedron, where the IP tried several times to copy-and-paste-move to nonahedron (a redirect) but was reverted. There is a discussion on the talk page there (not very long, because the IP keeps threatening to keep edit-warring and then getting the threat removed). After shorter times failed, I have semiprotected those two articles indefinitely, and also made (in most cases shorter) semiprotection for List of polygons, Enneadecagon, Enneacontagon, Enneacontahexagon, Hendecahedron, Decahedron, Enneagonal prism, and (redirect) Nonagonal prism, where the IP has continued their war against "ennea"-based nomenclature. The IP addresses have been shifting, but their range might be limited enough for a range block to work; I haven't checked. Hfdfdhhddddhf and Sdhshjsahsa are obviously socks of the same editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

So is Rthhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for SlitherioFan2016

I am proposing a topic ban for SlitherioFan2016 (talk · contribs) at the following articles:

• Motion picture rating system
• Television content rating systems
• Video game rating system
• Mobile software content rating system

This editor is effectively a SPA that operates almost exclusively on this family of articles, and in the time he has been present on them has been immensely disruptive. His MO is to persistently alter the color schemes in the articles so that the articles violate Wikipedia's accessibility criteria for color-blind users, sacrificing accessibility for aesthetic attractiveness. An RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: Should the comparison table in the article use a color scheme accessible to color-blind users? was established to resolve the issues, but now the RFC has concluded SlitherioFan2016 is unable to let it go. I will present the case chronologically and try to keep it as succinct as possible.

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#SlitherioFan2016 Socking/edit-warring/using misleading edit summaries – Following repeated attempts (and reverts) to install his preferred color scheme I filed this report. EdJohnston took up the case and reached an agreement whereby SlitherioFan2016 would not edit Motion picture rating system at all for four weeks.
2. Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: Should the comparison table in the article use a color scheme accessible to color-blind users? – The RFC was closed yesterday whereby SlitherioFan's non-compliant scheme was rejected and the consensus was to use the one that offered maximum accessibility to color-blind users.
3. [68] – This morning SlitherFan2016 overrode the RFC outcome with another variation on his favored color scheme.
4. Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: Should we propose a new 8-color scheme in the comparison table? – After I restored the version suported by the RFC SlitherioFan2016 started a new RFC to propose his new version, which his a variant on his original version. Needless to say it does not addrress the accessibility issues for color-blind users.
5. [69] – Furthermore, he has taken to "graphic-ising" other parts of the article. As you can see at the Australia entry he has converted the plain text into color-coded icons. Again, changing the text to different colors and surrounding it by colors could cause accessibility problems for screen-readers. It is completely redundant as well because the entry includes an image file showing exactly what the ratings symbols look like.

I am not opposed to further discussions on this issue with editors who are genuinely committed to improving the quality, aesthetics and the accessibility but SlitherioFan2016 is clearly not making a positive contribution to these articles. SlitherioFan2016 clearly doesn't understand the issues or simply doesn't care, and is now spreading the accessibility problems to the actual text parts of the article. I don't think the articles are well-served by his participation and it would perhaps be better if his efforts were directed to other articles. Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Is 30/500 protection effective now? If so, could it please be applied to the content ratings articles?
2. Any ideas where my new focus could be at? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Usually when someone replies to something like this, it's either in defense of their behavior, or an attempt to prove that they will no longer continue the behavior that has been considered disruptive by the accusing party. You have done neither. What IS your purpose here on Wikipedia? --Tarage (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to prove that I will no longer do what has been considered disruptive by the accuser. I only may have done it in a bit of an unfamiliar way. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Not looking too deeply, but the title of that RFC question is incredibly one-sided. The only way it could possibly be justified is if the OP is right on this thread and it is a problem with one user's disruptive conduct, but if that's the case opening an RFC just so more people would show up and disagree with them rather than reporting them here first was somewhat pointy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your comment. Which RFC title do you consider "one-sided"? The original RFC (mine) or the latest (the one filed by SlitherioFan2016 within 24 hours of the first one being closed)? And who exactly is being pointy; SlitherioFan2016 for starting a new RFC or me for filing this incident report? The reason I have brought this case here is because I am becoming increasingly tired of this editor making changes that potentially compromise the accessibility of this group of articles. I tried discussing the issue with him but was essentially ignored so that is why I filed the original RFC with the hope it would permanently resolve the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I must apologize for not being as dilligent as I normally would. I don't have the energy to go back through page histories and figure out who worded what and why. It's 6AM, and I spent the night drinking coffee in an airport Burger King because the only other way not to miss my flight would be to sleep at home, get up at 3AM, and then pay taxi fare that would amount to more than an overnight stay at a business hotel. That said, I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to RfC: Should the comparison table in the article use a color scheme accessible to color-blind users?. It should have been worded like I said here. Presenting the rationale for one side of the disagreement (even if that side is right) in the title of an RFC is blatantly problematic. It's a truism that no colour scheme except for black-and-white is equally accessible to colour-blind users and non-colour-blind users and it's a matter of degrees, but what's especially problematic is that SlitherioFan's rationale (which, again, I am not saying is a valid one) is not "Wikipedia should not be accessible to colour-blind users", but the RFC header presented it that way. Again, this is not an endorsement of SlitherioFan's point of view (which I don't know and am not interested in finding out); it is only a comment on the RFC wording. And bear in mind that I am notoriously strict about the neutrality of RFC wording (to the point that I was once criticized for my RFC question being biased against my own point of view), so my opinion can perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the RFC question itself is non-neutral at all. Wikipedia has accessibility guidelines so it is perfectly reasonable IMO to ask the community their opinion on whether a color-blind accessible scheme should be used. I think I made a mistake labelling the options as the "current" and "proposed" schemes which could be construed as a preference, but was in fact done only to distinguish between the two choices. That said the RFC question doesn't actually promote one as color-blind "accessible" and the other as "inaccessible" and I do not make an argument for either until my comments in the survey. Betty Logan (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the RFC question itself is non-neutral at all (emphasis Hijiri's) Nor do I. Read what I said more carefully. The question (basically "which of the following options should be implemented?") was neutral and was fine in itself. But the whole point of having a neutral RFC question is so as not to bias commenters -- it defeats the purpose of having a neutral RFC question if it appears below a heading that says "one of the options is accessible and the other is not". Wikipedia has accessibility guidelines so it is perfectly reasonable IMO to ask the community their opinion on whether a color-blind accessible scheme should be used That's beside the point. Everything is a balancing act. You should have said "some users believe that the relatively less accessible option works better aesthetically, while others believe that the compromising of accessibility is not worth it" -- don't just say "one option is more accessible" unless your goal is to bias the commenters. Again, if you are right on the substance (and I am not saying you are not) then not opening an RFC would have been perfectly acceptable, but once you open an RFC you have to play by RFC's rules. That said the RFC question doesn't actually promote one as color-blind "accessible" and the other as "inaccessible" You said yourself at the top of this thread that SlitherioFan's MO is "sacrificing accessibility for aesthetic attractiveness". This means that, if you were seriously attempting to get input from neutral third parties via an RFC, you should have presented both sides of the "aesthetically attractive vs. accessible" debate; "Should the comparison table in the article use a color scheme accessible to color-blind users?" clearly fails to do this, as it presents it exclusively as "accessible vs. inaccessible". Once again, you may very well be right that that is the case, and that this is one tendentious user behaving disruptively (and having looked at it a bit I am inclining to agree with you), but if that is the case then don't open an RFC, and if you are going to open an RFC then please do so in a neutral manner. I usually try to get agreement from the party with whom I disagree on exactly how an RFC should be worded beforehand (the reason for the problem alluded to above was that they refused to do so). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you bring up 30/500 protection. The only editor brought up as causing problems is you. Without commenting on whether you have been a problem, if you have been, the solutions would either be. 1) You voluntarily stop the problematic behaviour, e.g. stay away from the articles completely if necessary. 2) The community or an admin limits your editing (e.g. topic ban, block) because you are unable to stop the problematic behaviour yourself. There should generally be no need for 30/500 protection because of one editor. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment SlitherioFan2016 has changed the color scheme yet again: [70]. This is the second time he has changed it since the closure of the RFC. He has started yet another RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: Should we install a color scheme with 8 colors in the comparison table? (this is the second RFC he has started in 24 hours after he was asked by an admin to withdraw the previous one). He is abusing the RFC system (two new RFCs within 48 hours of the original one being closed) and is still failing to address the concerns that were central to the original RFC. Can we please deal the behavior? Betty Logan (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you not like it when I change the color scheme? If your answer is no, I will not change it again. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't like that you are editing against consensus. So yes, for your own good, don't change it again. --Tarage (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I have twice reverted his edits after he has claimed to be done changing the colors, so either there is some serious competency issues going on or he doesn't care and is playing games. Either way this needs to stop right now. --Tarage (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I've now blocked SlitherioFan2016 one week per a complaint at WP:AN3. This editor seems to agree to follow consensus, then he's off to make another change yet again, supported by nobody but himself. When he offers a deal I don't think we can take him seriously any more. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Likely good-faith editor, but refuses to communicate

BT101 (talk · contribs) has been creating multiple articles about the Canadian road system. Many of those, if not most/all, have been sent to various deletion venues (see the editor's talk page for a sample).

I came across Anjou Interchange and AfDed it. Since the editor seemed to be acting in good faith, I left an explanatory note below the Twinkle notice (the last paragraph means "I can communicate in French if needed be", as the editor seemed to be from Quebec, but of course the articles are in decent English so they likely can speak it). They seemed not to care, so I left another, stronger note with a separate heading. (Another user also commented on that thread). Since then, they have created another two articles (that will likely end up deleted).

This seems to be their only try to communicate so far, and it is not very encouraging. Because of their inability or unwillingness to discuss and the fact that those articles are not suitable for inclusion, I believe their actions so far have been entirely negative for Wikipedia, and warrant a block per some variant of WP:CIR.

(Note: not watchlisting, please ping if required.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Blocked for a week; would've been shorter, but they seem to be a weekend editor. Miniapolis 23:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

User:NFLjunkie22

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

---

This editor don't want to listen to anybody. He is using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Edit warring and making personal attacks, blanking userspace drafts of other editors. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

i do listen actually. a heated debate is not necessarily a battleground. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Several of us are trying to calm this down. Let's wait for action here until it's actually necessary. Katie^talk 14:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Emotions are high right now. Let's dial it back and try to discuss. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP

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

---

[This IP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/108.200.5.217] makes a habit of disruptively adding the word "American" to rodeo topics. [Diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Professional_Rodeo_Cowboys_Association&diff=prev&oldid=751223543] Been warned multiple times but won't respond or stop. They have actually been blocked before for it, but don't seem to have learned anything. The blocking admin is currently on a wikibreak, or I would've just contacted them. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by BabbaQ

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

---

BabbaQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly failed to assume good faith at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azusa shooting (which I myself have opened) and accused users who voted to delete the Azusa shooting article of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, even though they made perfectly reasonable explanations in which they agreed with my stance of WP:NOTNEWS and lack of long-term notability. Case in point ([71] [72]). I noticed he may have also made the same accusation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunilla Sköld-Feiler ([73]). I'm not sure if this applies to any other AfD discussions he's participated in. Parsley Man (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That are not personal attacks. Those are AfD discussions. WP:ANI is not for "this person disagrees with me" complaints. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with BabbaQ on this Parsley, the converse of the argument is WP:ILIKEIT. These are both essays though and do not trump policy/guideline related arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

But that is a matter for the closing user at the AfD discussion to take into consideration and decide. It is not matter for ANI. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec) It would have been helpful to link WP:IDONTLIKEIT for newcomers, as it's possibly hard to grasp this is a Wikipedia essay being touted as policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a matter for ANI though, lets all move on. I would suggest a friendly talk-page discussion someplace as it sounds like a misunderstanding. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you for your help and understanding TRM and Knowledgekid87.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. BabbaQ has been in strong support of keeping that article but there are more people in favor of deleting it rather than keep it. Looking at those posts, they seem like they're written by someone who's not getting his way. Parsley Man (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI is not the right place for this discussion. You have a WP:ILIKEIT standpoint. I have contacted you at your talk page. I suggest we continue this discussion there. BabbaQ (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. With the way you word these IDONTLIKEIT posts, they still feel like accusations and failures to assume good faith. Parsley Man (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I sadly fail to see how you are assuming good faith right now. I am moving on. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::Looks to me like the AFD is going Parsley Man's way; why is this here? I see no personal attacks by BabbaQ. Miniapolis 23:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand IDONTLIKEIT is an essay and not a policy, but please, closely read the way these posts are worded. They have to be, at the very least, failures to assume good faith. Parsley Man (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Time to close this discussion before it goes any further. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: I wonder why you did not contact BabbaQ on their talk page before posting here.

@BabbaQ: AfD should be a discussion about the article, or the potential of the topic to become an article. It appears the users participating in these two AfDs are acting in good faith and referencing Wikipedia policies/guidelines (directly or indrectly). Mentioning IDONTLIKEIT changes the conversation from discussion of the article to discussion about the users. Since you have created many articles, I know you understand Wikipedia's guidelines about notability, and I think you could make stronger arguments in AfDs. For example:

• In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azusa shooting, several users reference WP:NOTNEWS. In the AfD, could you describe how the Azusa shooting meets WP:EVENT?
• In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunilla Sköld-Feiler, two users claim that they didn't find any information about her which is not connected to the artwork. In the AfD, could you specify which Google results that demonstrate that Gunilla Sköld-Feiler meets WP:GNG? You might be able to locate Swedish-language sources that show she is independently notable that English-only readers like me might overlook.

Thanks and good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Good points GoingBatty. But again, ANI is not the place for this discussion. And Parsley keeps hammering on and on about how I have assumed bad faith. I can only see one user assuming bad faith and it is Parsley himself. It is just baffling. I hope they close this discussion soon. BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I gave him this ANI notice. Is that not enough? Parsley Man (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Parsley you fail to understand basic Wikipedia etiquette. It is time to move on. Please. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It is under my impression that I'm supposed to report a problem to ANI when I see it. I believed your posts to be a problem, so I took it here. Parsley Man (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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

What to do about a page turned into a completely different article

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

---

By chance, I came across what had been a disambiguation page (Coquihalla) that had gotten moved to a completely different title (Conversica) by the user Jcun3.

1. First, the editor removed the {{disambig}} template.
2. The content of the page was replaced with an article about a company, Conversica. I suspect the content was copied and pasted from Draft:Conversica.
3. The page was moved to Converisca.
4. Jcun3 retargeted the redirect left behind to Coquihalla River, one of the entries that had been on the dab page.
5. Converisca was edited a little and then moved to Conversica as an apparent typo.

The user and talk page for Jcun3 redirect to user Carll253's pages, who created the draft article that was declined. The only content editors on Converisca have been Jcun3, Carll253, and an IP, 45.29.138.229. Other editors have tagged and categorized the article. One of the tags is for conflict of interest and, after finding that Carll253 had uploaded a file as "logo provided by employee", I notified them with {{uw-coi}}.

I want to reinstate the original dab page, but the histories are now so confused that I decided to leave everything as I found it until it was determined what to do. I considered going to SPI, COIN, HISTMERGE, etc., but this was such a tangle of issues I finally decided to come here, as it's an "incident" and certainly will need administrators to unravel. — Gorthian (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

At the very least I've returned Coquihalla (disambiguation) with the pre-February DAB's to being as such for now so the DAB content is there; might be best to merge the pre-move history of what is now the Conversica page to that; the article as-is is a pretty obvious AfD as an unchecked WP:ADVERT. Nate • (chatter) 03:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What an utterly bizarre thing to do. I think I've put all the page histories back where they ought to be and redirected Coquihalla (disambiguation) to Coquihalla. I agree that someone needs to take a close look at the Conversica article itself. Mackensen (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Nate and Mackensen, thank you. — Gorthian (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted. That's going to be a Highstakes00 sock - a paid editor who runs a large sock farm of disposable accounts. The technique is presumably intended to prevent the paid articles from being noticed through WP:NPP. - Bilby (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Article protection status - Poland

The following discussion is closed. 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 I request the admin staff to return the Poland article to Semi-protected status (as all other 'country' articles have this lock on them). At the moment the article has no protection and in the last few days has been vandalized by unregistered IPs - these are small nuisances, nothing serious, but if we can return the article to it's original protection level, it will eliminate these small issues. --E-960 (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Not all country articles are semi-protected: I can name a few non-protected articles on African countries. 2. WP:RFPP is the right venue for this request. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

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

"BLP" violation and removal of comment from talk page

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

---

An editor called "Volunteer Marek" appears to have committed a "BLP" violation on a talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#allegations_of_illegal_votes

I'm not exactly sure what "BLP" is, but according to other editors on that page, he/she violated it. Also, that editor removed a comment of mine from the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States_presidential_election%2C_2016&type=revision&diff=751918290&oldid=751917920

"Volunteer Marek" appears to be a long-time editor in Wikipedia. Are long-time editors allowed to remove comments from new editors from article talk pages and violate "BLP?" If so, I'll withdraw my complaint. Shadilay (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a WP:BLP violation. Please provide a diff to an edit made by Volunteer Marek and an explanation of how it violates WP:BLP.- MrX 15:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no BLP violation. And an OP who alleges that someone has slurred a mythological being[74] is not to be taken seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Volunteer Marek David in DC (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Eh, Baseball Bugs, - also Volunteer Marek as David used the wrong template - kek in colloquial parlance means lol (laugh out loud) and not the mythological Egyptian god who I doubt Shadilay has ever heard of. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

One of Shadilay (talk · contribs)'s edits was to that mythological being. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh, Pepe the Frog is actually related to Kek the Egyptian god. Well that's a DYK nomination worthy piece of news right there. I always wondered why people said "praise Kek", given that kek is just WoW speak for lol. Well, cool info. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Whatever this Pepe and Kek stuff is supposed to be, there's no BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, I fully agree with you there. I am curious, however, why Winklevi and ML assert otherwise. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The OP already notified the user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What is a "diff"? Shadilay (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

DFTT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I posted the troll's ID at AIV, but the admins apparently want to give him some more rope. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oops, I just ran out of rope. Blocked: sock of User:TweedVest, another disruptive POV pusher. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• I see that TweedVest asked a pointed question a while ago--guess I never got the message. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Mplayer1999

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

---

Reporting this user keeps falling on deaf ears at AIV, so I'm bringing it here. For almost every month since June, User:Mplayer1999 keeps vandalising a handful of articles by introducing blatantly false information. No edit summaries, multiple final warnings given, two blocks received, but they still keep coming back around once a month time to make the same edits. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and should be blocked indefinitely. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions, I'm clearly seeing a trend ([75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]). DarkKnight2149 17:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done - surprised they haven't been indeffed sooner. GiantSnowman 17:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 threats

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

---

September 11 attacks#Semi-protected edit request - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

As it has since been deleted, the legal threat Mlpearc is referring to is this Mr rnddude (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like another "whatever" from a fringe theorist, although it is written in the language of a legal threat.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The relevant quotation from that post seems to be "... my party/group will file a Petition and Law Sue against Wikipedia in the federal court system to have your site taken down." So, while the person involved seemingly doesn't have a really good command of basic English, I think some sort of sanction is certainly called for considering that there is an explicit statement that there will be a suit to have the site taken down. I'm not sure how much good a block would do, though, considering the address/IP has made no other edits that I can see. Maybe it's a sock? John Carter (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter this IP has a poor command of English. Also what is "New World Order Party"?, and "England", rather than United Kingdom is mentioned in their comments! It all looks like a sock to me and not a very intelligent one at that. I think that the threat can be ignored. David J Johnson (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Boing beat me to it. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• :-) Obvious conspiracy nutter, NLT block for 31 hours. If they do the same again when the block expires (or from another IP in the range), feel free to ping me (or the good Dr). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Airplanes: hollow aluminum. Pop cans: hollow aluminum. Ergo planes crush like cans. I think this falls under WP:CALC. TimothyJosephWood 18:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Important/ relevant question to candidates reverted by admin Mike V.

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

---

Sir/Madam,

I have seen a case of censorship. I know the person and don't think there is ANYTHING out of place with his case. I don't mean to argue or say something bad about the admin who reverted the editor. Why can't an editor with record of good work on Wikipedia ask* a simple question. Thanks much for your review.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2016%2FCandidates%2FCalidum%2FQuestions&type=revision&diff=751826479&oldid=751825014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.214.216 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem is, basically, that the question being asked in the material linked to above deals with matters which are completely beyond the intended scope of the Arbitration Committee, and, on that basis, at best dubiously relevant to any individuals candidacy. The question being asked seems to me to deal more with an alleged bias in media, which, while it may exist, is not covered by policies and guidelines. Considering the remit of the ArbCom is to deal with matters violating policies and guidelines, and the question asked in no way clearly deals with matters of application of policy and guidelines, the question is no more useful or relevant than would be, say, Donald Trump's opinions regarding Neo-Platonic thought. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Potential Sockpuppet: User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

---

I was reading an article about Tariq ibn Ziyad and I noticed something weird, that he was listed as potentially Persian. I was immediately intrigued because not a single reliable source claims this, so I went and checked the edit, and the first edit introduced about the alleged Persian origin of Tariq ibn Ziyad was made by a user called HistoryofIran, who seems like an ultra Iranian nationalist. You can check the edit here. The edit was made in November of 2013. In August of 2015, almost 2 years later, the user Future Perfect at Sunrise re-added the questionable edit made by HistoryofIran here. What is suspicious about all of this is that Future Perfect at Sunrise made many edits in between without reverting to that edit, and then, all of a sudden, 2 years later, he remembers that edit and decided to revert to it. This is a huge red flag to those who know how long term socketpuppets behave (let the issue rest a bit, and then revert the edit by an established Wikipedia account). What is even fishier is that it seems that Future Perfect at Sunrise is also Iranian, but s/he doesn't mention this on his/her talk page (rather mentions many other languages, with the exception of his native language). The proof that Future Perfect at Sunrise is Iranian is this edit (obviously he knows the language) and many other edits about Iranian stuff.

Even if Future Perfect at Sunrise is not a sockpuppet, I believe he should be stripped of his administrator rights as he's not trustworthy. Reverting to an older edit that aligns with someone's background (in this case Iranian) is not how Wikipedia should work. I can't assume any good faith for his behavior (there may be, but I can't seem to find it), and I think it's people like this user who are ruining Wikipedia. Pm master (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Problem: HistoryofIran re-added the material with the edit summary "Restored deleted information". Indeed, an anonymous editor removed that information only days before: [85]. I think it's far more likely that HistoryofIran and Future Perfect at Sunrise overlap only in that they both restored information repeatedly deleted by vandals. clpo13_(talk) 00:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

OP also missed this edit, and this edit, and this edit... clpo13_(talk) 00:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I encourage closure of the discussion before the OP gets a WP:BOOMERANG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and finally, the true origin of the three theories: [86] by MisterCDE (talk · contribs) in May 2012. Is he a sockpuppet, too? clpo13_(talk) 00:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, have you tried talking to Future? If you want to open an SPI case then this is the wrong place to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute, yes. The editing history of the complainant here is also odd - long periods of inactivity. FPAS has been active in fighting the Nazi troll, among others, and that troll is always looking for ways to get even. That doesn't prove anything about the OP, but it might be worth considering. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise is a well-known, experienced editor and administrator. The charge of sockpuppetry is baseless on its face. Speculation about an editor's ethnic background is impermissible and, in any event, is misguided. Any sincere issue regarding the article content should be taken to the talkpage. Recommend closure of this thread. (P.S. after edit conflict: we should not suggest opening SPI cases that would be clearly meritless and just clutter up that page). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with not opening the SPI, but sometimes you can lead a horse to water... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. All of those insisting on adding this super weak reference have a reason for this. It is obvious that all of them are part of the same group. An investigation must be made - it is really annoying that all these weak edits are making it to Wikipedia. I don't care about the edit, I care about the legitimacy of the users, both of them are Iranian, both of them claim with a super weak reference that the dude was Iranian, and one of them reverted to the other one's edit after 2 years. The 2 years part is very important.

Nonetheless, speaking of who originally added the fake content, then it was this editor, MisterCDE, who, surprise surprise, is also Iranian. Ironically, this user gave Future Perfect at Sunrise a barnstar for his edits on Tariq Ibn Ziyad. This is not an edit war, it's just modifying facts through multiple sockpuppets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Christof Bucherer

The following discussion is closed. 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 revoked TPA for Christof Bucherer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on this: [87]. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Good call. Kleuske (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, a good call. Unfortunately, Mr Bucherer just does not understand how things work here. Blackmane (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Fair and Independent Examination of Future Perfect at Sunrise

The following discussion is closed. 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 been accused of being disurptive because I unveiled that MisterCDE, HistoryofIran, and Future Perfect at Sunrise all collaborated in the edit of Tariq ibn Ziyad article to include false reference of him as of Iranian descent. I have provided proof that all of them were Iranian (even MisterCDE granted [User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] a barnstar because of his false edit on that article).

In any case, my point here is not about the edit war, it is because of the false information provided on this website because of these sockpuppets/online armies. The moment I brought this up I was labeled as a disruptive person and I was ridiculed and threatened with a complete block by several administrator - my integrity was also questioned as I haven't been active for years (does that really matter?). Why? Is it because I am trying to draw people's attention to something very serious happening on Wikipedia? Not even a single administrator offered to investigate the issue further. MisterCDE invented stuff, which was reverted, and then the revert was reverted by HistoryofIran, and then, after almost 2 years and with many edits in between, Future Perfect at Sunrise reverted back (note that Future Perfect at Sunrise had 7 edits on that particular article between the last revert and his revert, so how come he didn't see that revert, while he looks like he "owns" the article).

The issue with Iranian sockpuppets is huge on this website, take a look at this [edit] which was made by an Iranian sockpuppet or online army imp - the origin of the word Sugar is well known on any good reference, but we have this weird website that we're using as reference, and it claims that the Arabic word originated from the Persian word (Huh? Please Google "sugar etymology") Obviously, in later edits, Iranian editors took note that the reference is very weak (not to mention spammy) and removed it, and also removed the Arabic etymology of the word.

My point here is to shed the light on a very dangerous practice on Wikipedia, and it's all around us. The fact that my original post got buried and locked immediately, and that I was threatened to be blocked for daring to speak about it reveals the magnitude and the power of this army on Wikipedia, twisting facts, and making almost everything that they can trace back to Iranian/Persian origins.

Currently Facebook is investigating itself for fake news. Wikipedia should do the same. There are some Wikipedia administrators right now that shouldn't be allowed to edit.

I think a serious and a decent investigation must be opened and unreliable information must be reverted and all culprits must be banned. I know it is a huge task, but we must start somewhere.

Please before closing this thread/blocking me for speaking out, check the information that I have provided.

With all due respect to anyone and hoping for a real, independent, and professional investigation. Pm master (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• BMK, let me just add this: Amaury warned the user on their talk page that this continued crusade on ANI is disruptive. Perhaps Pm master will, as seems to be a happening thing, see a total conspiracy here without any evidence--but Pm master, it's over: there is nothing to your claim/charge, and we will not be "investigating" this any further. You will be blocked if you pursue this, certainly if you pursue this in this venue. So please let it go. You got a content dispute, discuss on the talk page; but these baseless accusations have to stop. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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-only IP: 72.180.196.16

The following discussion is closed. 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 goes beyond AIV, as I suspect they would only say "Not enough recent warnings". IP 72.180.196.16 has been slow-vandalising mainly boxing articles since May. Two blocks and multiple warnings received, but every time they come back to do it again—and it's definitely the same person, as it's always boxing articles, and vandal edits. Today it was vandalism at Brandon Ríos, after an absence of a few months. I strongly recommend an indef block for this IP. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: WP:VOA#IP addresses might be useful to explain how except in very exceptional cases we almost never block IPs indefinitely. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

(Forgot to notify them; done now). Granted, then can it at least be for longer than just a few months? Their MO seems to be just that—return after two or three months, vandalise, leave, repeat. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked them for a bit. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Delete: Nadziejewo, Greater Poland Voivodeship

The following discussion is closed. 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 page barely has anything on it, Commander1987 (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You perhaps meant to link to Nadziejewo, Greater Poland Voivodeship? Not really an ANI topic, though. The 3 processes for deletion requests are shown at WP:Deletion policy#Processes, and the notability criteria at WP:Notability (geographic features). --David Biddulph (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone somewhere along the line decided that if a place exists, it can have a Wikipedia article. Take a look at some of the entries for French hamlets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Il faut casser quelques œufs pour faire un hamlet. <sound of AN/I readers groaning>--Shirt58 (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Administrators Please Respond

The following discussion is closed. 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 2 posts here that were immediately closed by non-administrators, even though I sought the help of administrators. They are disrupting me and harassing me and immediately closing my threads. I need help from an administrator, and I want someone to investigate my claims. How come I am immediately silenced when I have proof? Please see the link to the "Sugar" edit above. Again, I only need help from an administrator. I was, at one point, a huge contributor to Wikipedia and I think I deserve the privilege of talking to a serious and a neutral administrator who will check my claims about the Iranian sockpupppets and online armies. Pm master (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Guy, who closed your first thread, calling your claim "bonkers", is an admin; Newyorkbrad, who commented in the first thread that your claim was "baseless" is an admin; Drmies, who explicitly told you not to pursue the issue in this venue in the thread just above, is an admin. Your claim has been reviewed by neutral admins and rejected. As expected, you have been blocked for 48 hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 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.

---

I am in need of a block for an IP 173.218.237.220 (talk · contribs). Also reported to AIV. I'm on mobile, so diffs are a little hard. Thanks. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they are blocked. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I also had their edits to your page RevDel'd as they fell under WP:RD2. This should be good now. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Activity at Power Seven Conferences

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

---

I'm not sure where to start. There's an ongoing edit war. A user has tried to nominate the page for speedy delete three times (each time rolled back by a different editor, including yours truly, none of whom created the page.) It's now up for AfD and a user just tried to blank that page. Basketball, serious business. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• For the record once Mr. Vernon rolled it back and actually stated why speedy deletion wasn't applicable I have not placed the tag back. I'm trying to keep Wikipedia clean of an article with no merit and no citations to bake up their claim. I know I actively got into an edit war in an effort to get the article porperly vetted and I'll take the needed punishment for that. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit warring, incivilty, block evades from an IP contributor

The following discussion is closed. 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, an anonymous IP contributor is being abusive and is evading blocks. I propose to measure collateral damage and ban the whole subnet. I unfortunately am underinformed and can't provide a list of IPs blocked so far, but I believe this should be obtainable from the discussion linked. --Gryllida (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Look at User talk:WarMachineWildThing's page history. That should give you some idea of the IP addresses. This has apparently been going on for five months. Harassment like this should never be allowed. — Gestrid (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

For starters:

2a02:c7f:8e43:2f00:48b7:54e6:693f:bf42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The most recent known incarnation, just blocked today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that is all the IPs that posted on the harassed user's wall, though I hear NeilN may have been harassed some by this user as well at one point. I realize many of these IPs are stale, but they all provide evidence, and I hope they'll also provide some technical help with this situation, too. The IPs are listed in reverse chronological order. As I said, this harassment has been going on for five months. This cannot be allowed to continue! — Gestrid (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps slapping indefinite semi protect on WarMarchineWildThing's talk page will do the trick. IP's cannot be blocked for extended periods of time unless it is very stable. A short term range block may be in order though. @KrakatoaKatie:, you've done a number of range blocks in your time, would you care to comment? From the looks of things, the range isn't huge and collateral damage may be limited, but I don't have access to the IP range contributions tool. Blackmane (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

One IP is all I found in NeilN's talk page history: 185.54.163.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There are also a couple other IPs that might be able to be listed here, but they're not in the same range as most of the ones above and the edits they made were removed from public view, so I can't be sure enough to list them here. — Gestrid (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've extended the block on the IPv6, and will leave blocks on the others to those who do range blocks - it looks to me like there's at least one small range there that can be blocked. I also have WarMarchineWildThing's talk page watched now and will revert/block/protect as seems necessary. If other admins watch and do the same, we should be able to deal with this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• I've blocked 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00::/64 for one month, which will get the rest of the IPv6 addresses currently allocated to this end user. That, with the ECP Oshwah placed, should stop this for a while. The IPv4 range is 185.54.163.0/24, but there are no edits from this user in that range since around the last week of September. I have trouble rangeblocking stale IPs, so I'm going to leave that one alone for now. If he returns, ping me and I'll whack him. :-) Katie^talk 11:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As this is in regards to me I am going to respond. The IP user in question has been doing this for almost 5 months. The first time they almost got my blocked for edit warring, when that didn't work and they got themselves blocked they started jumping IPs and harrassing me through my talk page. When that got them blocked several times they jumped IPs again and went after others including the Admin who was doing the blocks NeilN. They have a tell that I normally can catch right away. They make an edit like last night of putting duplicate information in an article and when it's removed by another editor they put it back, when I remove the harassment starts and I'm suddenly and Vandal, OWNISH, and a bully to IPs. The IPs always Geolocate overseas to the same area. The comments are always the same towards me and thy always bring up the first interaction we had and all the harassing posts they made on my talk page. It is hard to avoid them because by the time I realize it's them again it's to late, and they never seem to get bored with it. I have placed myself on an Indef block for the time being and will not be editting as trying to revert IP vandals or any incorrect IP period is a little hard to do when any of them could be that IP user just waiting for me so this can start again. I appreciate each one of you who has taken steps to prevent this any further and reached out to me. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

After some calls to IT guys today I figured out how they keep coming back and changing locations. They are changing their IP manually. There are sites that show how to do this but I will not post them here, any ADMIN who wishes to see this can email me through my Wiki. Also I believe they are already back as I was notified today of a change on an article and it was done the exact same way they do. I know it sounds weird but after they reverted the revert of them by another user their comments to the user gave it away. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That method of getting around blocks is already pretty well-known here. It's what usually leads to semi-protection of articles, user pages, etc.. As for the IP WarMachine is referring to, it's 188.116.6.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Gestrid (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

And [here] is the edit warring, false accusing, IP we all know. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding 188.116.6.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as known sock. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

188.116.6.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Gestrid (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

188.116.6.0/24 has been rangeblocked by Oshwah for three days. — Gestrid (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

212.7.221.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 212.7.221.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Gestrid (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there nothing more that we can do? Because something needs to be done. Now that WarMachine's talk page has been indefintely semi-protected, the IP has moved on to other targets, including Oshwah and Dane2007, and they just keep changing IPs manually. — Gestrid (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

See I'm not crazy and I have no agenda against IPs. They started just like always adding something that had been already removed per a talk and then quoted WP policy incorrectly making it seem like they were right and others were OWNISH and biased against IPs, in the end they always give themselves away though. I pretty much watched them all day, I have their tell signs noted. Gestrid the only thing that could be done is ban every IP from wiki and that clearly is not the right thing to do or possible nor would I want to see that happen. Vigilance is the only way to fight this and to make sure when it's seen now that everyone has seen their pattern to make sure that it isn't just 1 user fighting the battle alone. After some comments made on Dane2007's talk page tonight I think I know who it really is but I'm not ready to say I'm 100%. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: If you do know who they are in real life, don't tell us. Even vandals are allowed their privacy. See WP:OUTING. — Gestrid (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I meant their master.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 20:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: Oh, ok. You still shouldn't tell us, anyway, as that still falls under WP:OUTING. In any case, DeltaQuad, who is a CheckUser, has increased the block on 2a02:c7f:8e43:2f00::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from 1 month to 3 months using {{CheckUser block}}. — Gestrid (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing and Gestrid: Has this activity stopped? Or is this continuing? I haven't seen anything stand out since the event a few days ago. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dane2007: I haven't noticed anything, but I was never the IP user's main target. WarMachineWildThing may have noticed something that I haven't. As I said above, the range the IP used for the most part is blocked for three months with {{CheckUser block}}. It must've been a sockpuppet of a banned user. — Gestrid (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Fairly quiet last few days but that is part of the MO. With everyone watching now I think it's safe to close this. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Blanking and synthesis

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

---

Joanpuig2001 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in unexplained blanking and synthesis despite repeated warnings and an attempt to discuss these issues. For example:

• Grown Ups (film): blanking a negative review
• Grown Ups 2: blanking an entire reception
• Independence Day: Resurgence: blanking box office data, blanking an entire reception section
• Gulliver's Travels (2010 film): synthesis, blanking, restoring synthesis
• Underdog (film): synthesis
• Scooby Doo (film): synthesis
• The Smurfs 2: synthesis and blanking

MOS:FILM#Critical response encourages sourced commentary about a film's reception, but there's consensus at WikiProject Film that unsourced interpretation of review aggregators is synthesis. This somewhat recent discussion at WT:FILM explains some of my concerns with putting too much emphasis on what review aggregators say and why we shouldn't depend on them for authoritative statements about reception. I previously left a message on Joanpuig2001's talk page, to no response. After someone else gave out a level four warning for blanking, more unexplained blanking continued, above in the last diff on The Smurfs 2. I would propose a short block for disruptive editing and refusing to explain why this blanking is on-going. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that we may have a biased disruptive editor on the loose (and if the username is any indication, the user is probably very young, though that's speculation on my part).

As for the synthesis, I wish I could say that this is an isolated incident, but these types of synthesis are unfortunately very common in the Reception sections of film articles. It doesn't seem to be one editor, or even just a small group of offenders that is adding such original research, though Joanpuig2001 certainly appears to be one of them. Another common synthesis I see a lot is people listing reactions as "Mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive" in the reception, which directly goes against WP:VG/POV. DarkKnight2149 21:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Joanpuig2001 just blanked another review, this one from Roger Ebert, in a GA: [88]. Can someone please do something about this? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Can an administrator please deal with Joanpuig2001? The user's actions are clearly disruptive. DarkKnight2149 02:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I've just blocked Joan indefinitely, more for ignoring everyone who tried to point out problems with his/her edits, than for the edits themselves. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense, given their disregard for other editors. DarkKnight2149 02:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 of United States presidential election, 2016 article

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

---

There have been editors who have attempted to put in the article the incorrect notion that Voter Turnout for the 2016 Presidential Election was something like 53.7% or 53.9%. This number is not only wildly incorrect, but it is also based upon poor original research. And of course everyone knows this: Wikipedia:No original research. But that has not stopped caradhrasaiguo or gsonnenf from putting in the article the 53% numbers and then attributing these incorrect numbers to an well-known expert in the field, Dr. Michael McDonald, professor of Political science at the University of Florida. See his work website: Univ of Florida Political Science Dept, Dr. Michael McDonald. See also his Voter Turnout website: United States Elections Project.

Dr. Michael McDonald is the leading expert in this area and he has been talking openly in the media that he believes when the vote counting is done that the percentage will be about 58%--not the fake 53% that caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf keep putting in the article. This 5% difference is significant and it is NOT consistent with what the expert claims and therefore is not a "meaningful reflection of the sources."

The 5% difference is based upon the fact that the voting has not been completed. Various editors have been asking that Voter Turnout not be placed into the article until ALL of the votes have been counted because no one can determine Voter Turnout until all of the votes are counted. It is simple common sense. But common sense has not stopped the dynamic duo.

It needs to be removed until the votes are fully counted. It is as simple as that. It is false and it is not supported by a reliable source and caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf are falsely claiming that the number caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf are making up is supported by the leading expert in the field, when it isn't.

However since caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf have taken it upon themselves to decide the true number of votes and to decide the number of eligible voters and calculate the Voter Turnout on their own--even though they are merely Wikipedia editors and are not experts. This is original research. Especially since the people that specialize in it--such as Dr. Michael McDonald--say that it cannot be determined until all of the votes are counted and McDonald is estimating a different, much higher number.

caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf keep reverting other editors and jamming into the article's infobox his original research number. This violates Wikipedia in all kinds of ways. Caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf claim that their edits have the consensus of the talk page and that could not be further from the truth. There are various editor who do not agree with their false calculations.

caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf have edited article to state that Voting Turnout is 53.7%. You can see one of the edits here: Gsonnenf's false claim that U.S. Elections Project reports 53.7% Voter Turnout. The fact is that Dr. McDonald has claimed publicly that he believes the Voter Turnout is NOT finalized but it should be about 58%--not caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf's made up 53.7%. Please see Dr. McDonald's 58% Voter Turnout Estimate here: On November 14, 2016, Dr. Michael McDonald stated 58%--not the false number Gsonnenf uses

• On November 23, 2016, the New York Times quoted Dr. McDonald's estimate to be 58%. You can see that New York Times report here: Quealy, Kevin. Election Facts to Keep Handy for Thanksgiving Dinner Discussion, New York Times, November 23, 2016.
• PBS quotes 58% for Voter Turnout. See: "What does voter turnout tell us about the 2016 election?"
• A quote from the November 24th, 2016 Irish Times article: When the race was called, this maths problem yielded a rate that was, indeed, historically low. It was also wrong, for the same reason that Clinton trailed in the popular vote at that time: Not all the ballots had been counted. Because the denominator in this maths problem – the number of voting-eligible adults on election day – does not change, the turnout rate goes up every time ballots are counted. As they have come in, the turnout rate has risen to about 57.7 percent. Michael McDonald at the US Elections Project estimates that it will ultimately be closer to 58.4 percent, a bit lower than it was in 2012 and roughly comparable to most presidential elections in the past 100 years. "US election facts that may surprise", Irish Times, November 24, 2016.
• FiveThirtyEight blasts Caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf's extremely low 53% number out of the water here: Bialik, Carl. "No, Voter Turnout Wasn’t Way Down From 2012", FiveThirtyEight, November 15, 2016. In that article Carl Bialik quotes Dr. Michael McDonald's with an estimate of 58.1%.
• Washington Post's Phillip Bump quotes Dr. Michael McDonald that Voter Turnout will be about 58.1%. You can read that article here: Bump, Phillip. "More votes were cast in 2016 than in 2012 — but that doesn’t mean turnout was great", Washington Post, November 15, 2016.
• The Christian Post quoted Dr. McDonald that the Voter Turnout is 58%. See here: Blair, Leonardo. "97 Million Eligible Voters Did Not Vote in 2016 Election", The Christian Post, November 15, 2016.

When you compare caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf's made up number (and they are NOT experts, just a Wikipedia editors) with the number that has been posted by Dr. McDonald on his Twitter account (and quoted in the New York Times), you can easily see that caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf are engaging in original research--which is verifiably incorrect and caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf are flat out making up a number and then--to put the icing on the cake--they incorrectly claim that Dr. McDonald supports the false 53.7% number. Dr. McDonald does not support any such thing. He estimates 58% or more and the difference between caradhrasaiguo's and Gsonnenf's false number and McDonald's true number way, way, too large to state that the C&G number is a "meaningful reflection of the sources"--which is Wikipedia requires.

An example of the disruption and the refusal to discuss the topic on the talk page is here: False claim on consensus by Gsonnenf, Just removing the Voter Turnout number without discussion by caradhrasaiguo, Caradhrasaiguo just reverts without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaverickLittle (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Short Summary: Two editors of the article are putting in the article a false number for Voter Turnout. They support their false number with a citation to the U.S. Elections Project. However, the Elections Project does not support their number. They are not providing a "meaningful reflection of the sources" that Wikipedia requires. They refuse to discuss it on the talk pages and they false claim there is a consensus to post the false number in the article. The number they post is original research.--ML (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Whoever posted the above needs to 1. sign it and 2. provide a brief summary of the above. In short, tl:dr. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

SUMMARY: We have been having trouble with MaverickLittle for sometime, I have been to busy with RL to file an ANI against him. The 53.X number represents the "Voting Age population" which is used in previous presidential election info boxes. Their was initial consensus, then Maverick Little starting reverting, we then re-established consensus [89] and MaverickLittle just ignored our post and reverts (as usual). He is sometimes incoherent in arguments (claiming everyone else is wrong and false repeatedly, posts weird emotional messages [90]. He has been very rude when I've tried to discuss being being civil on his talk page. I've tried to engage him in dispute resolution but he ignored the process [91]. He just seem to vigorously assert he has consensus and we don't, or harass and fight people until they leave the article. He has more time on his hands than us (he consistent edits for several hours nearly every day since his account creation), I think it is a a travesty that people get harassed off the article because of a more persistent professional wikipedia editor. Gsonnenf (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Gsonnenf did not respond to the substantive issues raised. He just personally attacked me. The number that he is posting in the article is a false number and it is not supported by the reliable source given. The reliable source given states a much higher number. This is substance and Gsonnenf refuses to address the substance.--ML (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It is worth noting the above vitriol by MaverickLittle is merely a rehashing (I would think unproductive for AN/I), of Xer initial posting on the matter, which comes after Xer previous undiscussed reverts – undiscussed in the sense that (s)he persistently failed to discuss Turnout on said talk page until the aforementioned initial posting. It is also worth noting ML's lengthy block record as relating to Edit warring / Tendentious editing, and blatant assumptions of Ill faith. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

My brief reading of this suggests that this is a (more or less resolved) content dispute. There is certainly no original research, because simple calculations are exempt from that policy. I would advise Maverick Little to chill. I have not found any impropriety from Gsonnenf or CaradhrasAiguo after a brief inspection. In any case, this does not seem suitable for ANI except possibly as a WP:BOOMERANG.Tazerdadog (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The issue is one of original research. The number they are posting does not conform to the reliable source provided. Continuing to put a false number in the article is disruptive editing and it violates original research. So far all responses to this topic have refused to address the substantive issues raised here: (1) original research and (2) misrepresenting what the reliable source says. The reliable source says Voter Turnout is 58% and the two disruptive editors are 53%, which is wrong and does not conform to the reliable source.--ML (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one who's seeing this response they left on my talk page filled with personal attacks? Also, I'd like to point out their attitude on my talk [92]. "You should be thanking me instead on making untrue statements about me." Seriously? WP:BOOMERANG please. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out more personal attacks by the OP. They were warned by an admin (on mobile, don't remember the name) and the OP removed it with a self-righteous attitude. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, another response that does not, in any way, respond to the substative issues raised here. The two editors are engaging in: (1) original research and (2) misrepresenting the opinion of the reliable source. Once again, the reliable source has clearly stated that the Voter Turnout is about 58.1%, not 53% that the two editors keep jamming into the article. Is the reason that no one responses to the underlining substantive issues is because they don't have a leg to stand on? It seems that way to me. The two editors are just pulling a false number out of their hind quarters. It is as simple as that.--ML (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• After reviewing this thread, as well as related activity at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016, the cited user talk pages, and MaverickLittle's history on Wikipedia, I've blocked MaverickLittle indefinitely. He's repeatedly demonstrated a tendentious, battleground-style approach to editing, has refused to acknowledge or respect consensus, has repeatedly and combatively berated other editors with obnoxious personal attacks, and consistently lowers the standards and worsens the editing environment on articles where he is active. None of these are new behaviors and none have shown evidence of improvement since his previous two blocks for similar behavior. At some point, good-faith, constructive editors deserve protection from this sort of nonsense so that they can improve content in peace. We're well past that point, especially given that the American politics topic area needs all of the help it can get in terms of promoting a better editing environment. The block is of course open for review by any other admins who wish to do so. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the above (and having no knowledge of the editor), I'll just say that I'm surprised it took this long from them to actually reach an indef block. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 been uploading unfree files and adding them to pages

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

---

Vuongtrang26011995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded many images pertaining to smartphones and other computers in a short period of time. Although the user has been dormant for a while, I would just want to make sure these files are indeed inappropriate for inclusion. Seeing that the user's talk page has indicated that several of his or her uploads have already been deleted, a mass deletion might be necessary to get rid of the remaining images, and then the user should be sternly warned. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Files were all copyvios and were all nuked by Oshwah. --Majora (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit warring at Liquid fluoride thorium reactor by IP user 71.195.221.79

The following discussion is closed. 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 user 71.195.221.79 keeps reinserting a TED video to the article in a really disruptive manner. He also violated the 3RR rule. Diffs: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97] -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It's edit warring (which is disruptive, granted), but we have a special noticeboard for that. I suggest you report him there. Kleuske (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked the IP. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. Thanks. -- CoolKoon (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Vandal only account with problematic username

The following discussion is closed. 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 wasn't sure which venue to best submit this editor, Aryan.wikipedia (talk · contribs). The edit history is clearly that this is a vandal only account, however, the username also denotes a racist (or white supremacist) viewpoint. But I'm just not sure if it raises to the level of a WP:USERNAME level. —Farix (t | c) 14:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this user for the vandalism and WP:BLP violations. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Strange things with new editors

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

---

While patrolling recent changes, I noticed something a bit peculiar: several accounts have been made, all with a single edit and adding the same content to their userpage. See User:Mellere, User:Kasaad, User:CBrown2657, User:Sharon OH, User:M.Bursa07, and countless others (just look here and you'll see a pattern). I am sorry if this is the wrong place to put this, but it seems important to note. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You know, after looking closer at it, it just appears to be a school assignment thing. Sorry for this, but you do gotta admit some suspicion is warranted (of sorts). JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That's remarkable User:JudgeRM! We are indeed a class, getting ready to attempt contribution on a range of articles to do with Oral Health and/or Dentistry. We're all sitting here now looking at your message, impressed with how quickly patrolling works in Wikipedia. Thanks for the demo :) Leighblackall (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Leighblackall: See WP:Education program. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Why the File that my own work that link to the living person in Thai wiki, wll be delete?

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

---

1 Three year agos Thita Manitkul creat account in her real name and to upload her own photo because she did not like the one they use .It was delete I donot know why ? 2 My father was her ex photog her ,driver,secretary ,every thing about politic so when she quit he loss his job 3 As you all know Thailand has been under military regime for all most three years My father want to be hire by her again 4 So we ask panda to creat account under his nick name and have him provide us and we use the account togather like 5 persons .The other two are mr.sukavich 'wife and his son (She have all kinds of old newspaper clips about the family in and put on the table like photo flame.i upload the one about the minister of Defence appoint spokesperson .it was already delete and it my own work.i use in Thai wiki when Thai saw they will know who he appoint and when it was. 5 the other newspaper clip still there i cut it that way because the other person involve .But what left is enough for people who understand thai to know what I wrote was true?

User talk Thita manitkul from 2013 was block with User talk Panda Manitkul because we try to upload the picture to that file name

It is th:ฐิฏา มานิตกุล in her talk page It her real name , am I right?

it understandable then because he is the son. That they block his page.

Someone probably told her that that why she abondon her page Panda also thought that being son of subject doing harm more than good he told us to left him out We would not mine if you delete the other two account

My page was block by the same person as well because I uploads the same photo(it was the last election photo of her we still have it. 

I was block right after creat this account and upload her photo in her name What should I do. We are not sock it very rude word. I try to by polite but..... If the person have hard felling because of homosexual issue. I know it not true but can not find source yet .It probably one person lies that the family let it slip. If ladmc(Jubileeclipman)(talk)finish the article in English you will understand why it was slip . IT was one sentence man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22sep (talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

To explain a little.

1. The files are all at Commons so nothing to do with admins here. I have asked an admin there to help out.
2. I am helping this editor to make the various articles—that he and others have created—acceptable. They are in (or have been returned to) draftspace.
3. The various parties now recognise the CoI issues and are happy for me to help them.
4. I will advise 22sep to stop contacting AN with these issues.

Sorry for any inconvenience. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Um, Kudpung, can you figure this out? Evidently the article in question is Draft:Thita Manitkul. I don't understand what 22sep is trying to convey, but they need to understand that one Wikipedia account should not be used by more than one person. Each individual should have a separate account, and none of them should masquerade as someone else by using someone else's username or nickname. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Softlavender, no time right now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

God's Godzilla doesn't appear to have learned his lesson

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

---

God's Godzilla was blocked for one week for copyright violations for repeated additions of copyright violating external links after several warnings were given about this behavior. When his block expired, GG created at least one more such link (here) which required a revert. The prior ANI discussion regarding his behavior (here) also included notes about GG's fondness for extensive overlinking and inappropriate redirects, a behavior that has continued since the lifting of the block. I will admit that a great many of GG's edits are relatively harmless, but I don't see many (or any at all) that are actually helping the project in any meaningful way. GG's refusal to hear others' comments / advice regarding copyright violating external links and overlinking indicate that this user may not be willing to work collaboratively at Wikipedia, preferring rather to simply do their own thing with little regard to the rest of the community. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - indef block

• A quick review of some of God's Godzilla's recent edits [98][99][100][101][102] suggest that they have not taken the previous advice to heart, or there is a serious WP:CIR problem. At this point, they seem to be doing more harm than good, so I propose an Indefinite block.

A quick review of the five links that MrX posted above reveals that not one of them added any copyrighted material to Wikipedia. I am, of course, assuming here that neither "[[" nor "]]" are under copyright. Also the copyright violation notice added by another editor to GG's talk page refers to an edit that also did not add any copyrighted material to Wikipedia. WP:BOOMERANGs anyone? --Elektrik Fanne 16:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Since I said nothing about copyright, your comment is rather nonsensical. - MrX 16:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The links above are about the ongoing behaviour, which include overlinks, excessive redlinking, etc. The user has been warned frequently about these issues and continues unabated. Copyright is just one of the many offending violations.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Eletrik Fanne: This edit to Earth 2100 added a link to a Youtube video that was posted in clear violation of copyright. WP:COPYVIO covers both addition of copyrighted material to Wikipedia and linking to copyright violating content elsewhere. God's Godzilla was previously blocked exactly for this type of inappropriate external linking. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Advice to Elektrik Fanne; you're too quick to jump to conclusions, as evidenced by your near instant BOOMERANG suggestion. If a report leaves you without the impression that action is needed, the correct response is to ask for more information. If none is forthcoming then consider looking - briefly - for evidence yourself. If after that, you conclude that the initial report was baseless and vindictive, then ask for a BOOMERANG. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have actually looked at the material linked to. Linking to an infringing copy is not actually a copyright violation in itself because no further copy has been made. At least that is the position under UK law, but I know the Americans take a very different view. I have struck my post above. --Elektrik Fanne 17:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Has the editor in question been offered any form of mentorship yet? I think that would be reasonable before indef blocks are considered. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with John Carter. On the other hand, God's Godzilla, it would be a really good idea if you joined the conversation. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Mentorship seems an unlikely path given this user's reluctance to engage in discussion of any type. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I Got it alright but my point is that I edit under the circumstance that people will review it...(not to much to ask), also if there's a Setting where I can make my edits subject to review that would be awesome, so None of Us have to go through with this back forth mediocrity. Also I (if your wondering) DO Know how to Sign my posts I always do, if your looking for the Talk button, Sorry (your out of luck) I don't Know How To Do That (Yet, Okay, No Offense?!) — God's Godzilla 20:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do understand if I Get Banned Okay, I just Want My Edits to Constructive That's All! — God's Godzilla 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: You said:

I edit under the circumstance that people will review it... (not to (sic) much to ask)

Actually, it is too much to ask that someone should be around to review every edit you make (especially considering how prolific you are). We all edit under the understanding that other editors may review our work and fix it. But there is no guarantee that such a review will occur. And no, there is no setting that will cause all of your edits to be "provisional" subject to the review of another editor. If you are not willing to take responsibility for your own edits, and are not willing to learn on your own how to avoid mistakes which are, at best, just annoying, and at worst, highly problematic (copyright violations), then perhaps you do not have the competence required to edit successfully at Wikipedia.

As for the signature issue, no one had brought that up at this particular report, but as you mention it, if you are using the four-tilde signature ('~~~~') and it is not automatically generating a signature that includes a link to your talk page, it is because you have created a custom signature on your Preferences page. You should delete the custom signature so that the default Wikipedia signature will be generated for you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: Unfortunately, it really isn't anyone's obligation to review all edits made by other individuals in article space, and it seems to me that is exactly what you are requesting above. That seems more like making a request to change the content, and the appropriate place to do that sort of thing is on the article talk page, not in the article itself. If you want your edits to be constructive, as you say above, it seems to me that proposing them on the article talk page is more likely to get the results you seek. Also, so far as I can tell, you don't seem to have yet learned that typing four tildes, like ~~~~, is what I believe what was being referred to. Also, as you admit you don't know how to do something yet, then I strongly suggest that maybe you review the editor help pages, which should provide the information on how to do that. Unfortunately, it is incumbent on every editor to demonstrate that they are competent to edit, and it is often the case that editors who do not display that competence are sanctioned. I think on your user talk page you were given an invitation to the Wikipedia Teahouse. I very strongly urge you to maybe contact them for help in the matters you are not yet particularly competent at. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I was referring to the mode of Pending policy in the way of My Editing so that the edit can be reviewed before publication — God's Godzilla 20:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: For that I don't understand what the Teahouse (more or less), thanks for the tip I'll consider checking it out, and I Will Probably Change My Signature Later... — God's Godzilla 20:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Suspect God's little Godzilla signing their posts by typing name. Techie little users on ANI and on user's talkpage most likely fail to understand zillas' thought processes. bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC).

@Bishzilla: Yo Ya Forgot My First Name and This Godzilla is the Christ of Monsters (pun intended) — 21:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: The pending changes protection you mentioned is a protection that is applied to individual Wikipedia pages to prevent persistent vandalism. It is not a tool that can be applied to all edits made by a particular user. The process you are asking for does not exist and would require a programming change of the underlying Wiki software. Not impossible, but an unreasonable amount of work to request just so that you can have a safety net for your careless editing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Okay, I get that and I Do My Best To Keep Me Edits to a Minimum (Say Please, Notify Me if This or a Similer Situation Happens Again, Okay, It's (Very Helpful) — 21:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: 1,150 edits in ~90 days: I'd say that's a bit more than "minimum". And it doesn't take all that many copyright violations to cause significant problems. So far, I have not seen anything from GG that indicates they have understood the problem and won't repeat it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Given God's Godzilla's editing pattern and unusual approach to interaction with other editors, I think at this point we should consider whether this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, rather than a rule compliance issue. -- The Anome (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: A. One I'm One person, 2. I understand where your coming from with the Copyright Violations, I Didn't Realize It and in general All I Want To Do is Contribute, I Seriously Didn't Mean for This to happen. — 02:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: Saying "I didn't realize it" is disingenuous since you were already blocked once for this behavior. If the first block was insufficient to make you realize it, then a second block of longer (perhaps permanent) duration is required to prevent this mistake from happening again. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome: Thanks for Understanding and for Editors here I Think I'm Going to Take a Break for a While — 02:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that there is a pattern of poor editing here. As noted above it seems more likely a case of competence as opposed to deliberate disruptive editing. Also GG's comments suggest that English may not be his native language. To my mind some form of mentoring might be a constructive move. I note that there is little evidence of any malicious intent here. And Wikipedia is not exactly drowning in new editors. To my mind when you have someone who clearly wants to help, but probably doesn't know how, indefinitely blocking them seems perhaps a less than optimal recourse. At least it should not be undertaken until lesser correctives have been attempted. I am disheartened by the speed with which indefinite blocks are called for at ANI, often for situations which, at least IMO, don't justify such an extreme response. All of which said, some of GG's edits have been problematic. And he needs to step up and put in the effort to read the guidelines that have been linked in repeated messages in various talk pages. That means slowing down and being extra careful before making an edit. If there is any doubt he should ask for the opinion of a more experienced editor. I am a strong believer in going the extra mile to help new(ish) editors. But they have responsibilities too. The community cannot be taxed with following him or any other new editor around indefinitely with a mop bucket cleaning up their trail of bad edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Yes, English is My Native Language, and Yes I Agree Completely but it's up to I to Take That Responsibility Onto Myself. Also I Think It's About Time To CLOSE This Conversation (At Least For Now...) — 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Closure Reverted

On the best of days, it is inappropriate to close a discussion about yourself. SQL^{Query me!} 06:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: Well than will You Close It? — 06:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. SQL^{Query me!} 06:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If mentorship is an issue, I can volunteer for the part. God's Godzilla, however, needs to approach me first so I know he/she is willing to improve. I would take questions and point out ways to improve. I only ask that God's Godzilla brings me questions before going about their editting so there does not need to be big clean-ups.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Yo Man Hay if that's Optional I Guess I'll Take it... (as long as it's Within the Confines of Wikipedia, I Guess) — 20:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

God's Godzilla okay, good. Let's see how other editors feel about my proposal before I can guarantee that is the outcome they want. It would be a good first step if you use the four tildes for properly signing your username. You have been asked quite a few times.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: About the Signature, any time I do it I Always get Ridiculed for It, Though...(Sorry) — 23:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept TGS as GG's mentor, but @TheGracefulSlick:, are you sure this is a task you want to take on? GG is not the kind of editor who comes in and makes 1 or 2 big edits a day for you to review. They make dozens of small, oftentimes meaningless edits every day, generally involving severely overlinking articles. For one mentor to review all of that work seems a daunting task. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I Won't/Don't Nearly Do That Many Edits Per Day?! — 23:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiDan61 then I could educate him on linking practices if that's what he wants to do. If he shows no sign of progress from his next bunch of edits, we can take it here again and put an end to it. It would be more beneficial if God's Godzilla started editing the article's contents to familarize himself with basic editing. I first would like to see, however, GG take the small steps of signing his name properly. I have not seen anyone "ridicule" him for it, but rather encouraged it. Not to be disrespectful, but are you positive, GG, that English is your first language? You make several grammatical errors. Unless, maybe you are doing it intentionally? – TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Yes, English is My First Language, and No I Don't Make Grammatical Errors on Purpose, and As You Can See I Try to Fix Them (sorry) — 23:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have to say this. Please don't capitalize the first letter of every word in your sentences, even when in bold. English doesn't require you To Talk Like This. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Close Down

When Can I Close This Conversation?! — 23:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: You can't. This is a discussion about you – it will be up to someone else to close it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Than Can You, Please? — 23:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion will be closed when the issues about your editing have been resolved. —Farix (t | c) 23:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheFarix: (Than) Who? — 23:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A non-involved editor. But so long as you behave in a petulant manner, as you've done above, it is unlikely to be closed. Also will you actually sign your comments properly and knock it off with the random boldface? —Farix (t | c) 00:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This editor is either willfully trolling us or grossly incompetent. It is probably both. So fair they have refused to address the community's concerns and they have disrupted this thread multiple times by closing the discussion and refusing to sign their posts. It is also worth noting they they barely have a rudimentary grasp of the language of this wiki. I think we have moved past civil appeals and right in to GTFO territory. --Adam in MO Talk 00:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Adamfinmo I am starting to think the same thing. I am willing to mentor him under the simple (I thought) requirement that they properly sign their name. I have not seen it, sadly. I hate to say it, but we may have a case of a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Everyone has given him a fair chance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla:, could you give us the least bit of confidence by actually signing your name with four tildes? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick and Adamfinmo: All I'm trying to do is close this down and put this all behind us, Responsibility. — God's Roaring Godzilla 00:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Someguy1221 I think this is a lost cause. He is either ignoring requests or refusing to do something as simple as signing his username correctly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Indef block of God's Godzilla Proposal

• Support Indef block with the standard offer and an admonishment to sign all talk page posts. Per this thread. --Adam in MO Talk 01:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Unfortnately, GG is just not complying with simple demands, and, if he is seemingly not able to sign his username correctly, how can we expect to trust him with other functions? If he somehow shapes up very soon, I will extend my offer again to mentor him, but I doubt it will happen.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral/Done (@TheGracefulSlick:) – 1. What does GG mean?, 2. I don't know how to Really modify it anyway, 3. I just frankly want to drop it — God's Roaring Godzilla 04:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• The fact that you still can't sign your name correctly doesn't bode well for the outcome of this proposal. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: GG is an abbreviation for your username. I'm really kind of shocked that I have to explain that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This is either gross and irremediable incompetence, or deliberate trolling. And TGS is not qualified to mentor or keep a handle on such a prolifically incompetent user. Thus, mentorship is out, and since the user still can't be bothered to follow even the least sort of instructions (see their recent edits), or leave an edit summary, or even sign his name correctly after numerous requests and instructions (or check "Show preview" before posting), it seems to me we have no further option. Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support I can't tell if GG is massively incompetent or just having a really good laugh at our expense, but in either case, I don't think the Wikipedia should put up with it any further. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is either trolling or an unsolvable WP:CIR issue at this point, between the capitalization of Every Single Word, random bold text, repeated requests to close the discussion prematurely, and complete stone-walling of simple requests to sign their posts properly. TheGracefulSlick was incredibly generous with their offer of mentoring above. The sort of mentoring that would have been needed here is never particularly easy, but it becomes impossible when the editor being mentored is unwilling to listen to anything the mentor is saying. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support After all this to-ing and fro-ing, this appears to be a clear-cut WP:CIR issue, with GG's attempt to take charge of this discussion being the last straw. Indefinite blocking (with the standard offer) seems to be the only way to resolve this now. There seems to be consensus for the block here, so unless anyone disagrees in the next few minutes, I'll perform the block and close this discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - to give other editors a chance to weight in on a proposal thats been up for less than 24 hours. Anome, this is not yet a situation were a quick reaction is needed. Give it a couple days breathing room. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Unverified claims in Johor Bahru 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.

---

Johorean Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted that Iskandar Malaysia is the third largest metropolitan area in Malaysia, even though statistics show otherwise as it is the third largest, not second. Here is his version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johor_Bahru&oldid=751950711 This user has reverted my revisions and even posted a crude nonsensical explanation on my talk page. Semi-auto (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this board is not for such issues. No admin intervention seems to be required here. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Semi-auto, the user has not posted anything on your talk page. Please discuss these content issues on the talk-page of the article, providing independent reliable-source citations. Softlavender (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Deleting Articles Without Discussion; Continuous Refusal to Even Slightly Try & Compromise W/ Others

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

---

C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The page Skippa da Flippa was deleted with little-to-no discussion, with the main concern being lack of notability. That alone is rather ridiculous because we have an entire page dedicated to a dance move created by the same artist, I looked past this & didn't let it bother me. I spent hours gathering sources to prove the artists notability, I gathered numerous sources that proved him the creator of the Dab (something nobody from WP had previously done) and on top of that had numerous sources referring to him as the "Hottest Rapper Out of Atlanta Today". I posted a total of twelve new sources to the deleting administrator's Talk page. The user replied in less than ten minutes, (showing not only he didn't read the sources) but acted as though he had read every single one of them and zero of them claimed notability. These actions have led me to file this report as it's entirely unacceptable when an Administrator ignores facts & credible sources and goes about making edits at their own discretion and refusing to cooperate/compromise with fellow editors. Not only did I spend days creating the page, but also spent hours gathering the sources that the Administrator in question claimed were important (that he couldn't even be troubled as to read). This has made me feel as though no matter how much hard work/dedication that I put into creating an article free of implicit bias, that an administrator can simply look at the article and permanently delete the entire thing based on their opinion alone. Cheetoburrito (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You should read WP:SIGCOV. Mere mentions of a person are not enough to show notability. I would also encourage you to take C.Fred's advice and work on a draft article. Finally, please assume good faith in your dealings with other users. It doesn't take more than ten minutes to skim through a handful of articles to see if they're suitable. clpo13_(talk) 22:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• The admin didn't delete it through his opinion, he was required to by policy. This is because the article was deleted through a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skippa da Flippa, and if you try to re-create it in the same form, it will be speedy deleted through this speedy deletion criteria. It is probably not best for you to claim that "WP is a community effort and so long as you refuse to work cooperatively, this will be continuously re-added"; if you wanted the article re-creating, the venue is deletion review or trying to improve the article so that it meets our notability policies, not pointlessly re-creating the same thing. For what it's worth, the deletion was correct as the article was completely sourced to ITunes/Spinrilla, which merely proves that the artist's mixtapes exist and don't claim any notability for the person themselves. WP:BIO and more precisely WP:MUSICBIO will give you guidelines as to showing notability for musical artists. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• • This consistent refusal to actually READ sources and just check the headlines is exactly how I was forced into this situation, SIGCOV you did not read twelve articles in six minutes AND type your message. You aren't going to convince anyone of this, also the Administrator in question is the one not assuming good faith, your assumption that I am the one doing this is a personal attack. As for, Black Kite I would like to thank you because I did not realize that the two deleting Administrator's were different users, but am still unsure about which would be responsible for proper undeletion of the page. It's very possible this could be a moot argument if the original deleting administrator is capable of undeleting, as I'd be ecstatic at the opportunity to discuss. However your pointing out of the iTunes/Spinrilla argument makes me think you also aren't paying much attention to the issue, as I've found more than ten new sources, all from credibile publications, citing notability. Cheetoburrito (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Cheetoburrito: You're not getting the main point here: the article was originally deleted based on a community discussion. According to WP:CSD#G4, if the article is recreated with substantially the same content as the version that was previously deleted, the article should be deleted because the community has already reached consensus that it does not belong. Continuing to argue here that the people who deleted it are acting in bad faith is not going to gain any traction. Take the advice the other editors here have already given you, and create a new, different article that does more to show how this artist is notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • No, I got all of that, Black Kite already stated that literally right above you. Also literally right above you, I thanked him for pointing this out. My argument that the user acted in bad faith is still very much in tact, because as can be seen at their talk page, they pretended to read numerous sources that cite notability and attempted to discredit them for unknown but obviously biased reasons. I'll happily begin drafting a new page should an original copy of the page be delivered to my SandBox, so I can mend it accordingly. None of this changes the fact that the Admin in question has clearly abused their authority. Cheetoburrito (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
      • It is hardly abuse of authority to delete an article that is recreated, substantially identical to the article that was deleted after the AfD process, under CSD G4, as I did twice. If you really want to talk about bad-faith editing, let's consider Cheetoburrito's edit summaries when he recreated the article:
        • "Page was deleted without proper discussion, users intentionally closed discussion without letting those who disagree participate." [103]
        • "What do you know!! Deleted again without discussion taking place. WP is a community effort and so long as you refuse to work cooperatively, this will be continuously re-added." [104]

      Never mind that the first of those two recreations was after AfD ran for a week and that Cheetoburrito had participated in it. I think we're at the right outcome: working on the article in draft space. It would have been smoother if Cheetoburrito had followed the guidelines for contesting deletion from the getgo or just created a new article in draft space. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to re-argue the AfD based on "new" sources, then you must go to deletion review instead to present the sources or create a draft of the article, then present the draft to deletion review. You claim that C.Fred acted in "bad faith" by not reviewing your sources, but it is not the place of an admin to unilaterally overturn the result of a deletion discussion. —Farix (t | c) 23:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears that Tokyogirl79 addressed these concerns after comments by Cheetoburrito at WP:REFUND: [105]. It's too bad Cheeto then deleted that comment with a perfunctory "No." IMO, there is nothing more to discuss here, unless Cheeto wants to account for their constant assumption of bad faith on the part of administrators following process (though I suspect this may play some part in it). clpo13_(talk) 23:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• OK. I have reviewed the sources that Cheetoburrito provided, and whilst a number of them are about the dance rather than the artist himself, who is just mentioned in passing, there are also a couple that may provide some possibility of notability. Therefore, I have restored the deleted article to Draft:Skippa da Flippa. Cheetoburrito, please work on the article there, and when you're done, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page to submit it to articles for creation. Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated cut & paste moves and edit warring at Vento Aureo/Golden Wind

The following discussion is closed. 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 Dvexx (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a slow-motion cut & paste edit war at Vento Aureo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)/Golden Wind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).[106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115] Dvexx has been attempting to rename the article without engaging in the WP:RM process and change all incoming links to the new name. Because they are using a cut & paste method, several other editors have reverted the edits do to their inappropriate methods. Dvexx, has been warned once that cut and paste moves and not acceptable,[116] but they have so far ignored the warning. Despite a previous attempt to engaged the editor in a discussion,[117] the editor has not engage. —Farix (t | c) 02:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Dvexx is now blocked indefinitely until he can demonstrate an understanding of page moves and edit warring, or at least promise not to do them anymore. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 request

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

---

Might we have a rangeblock for repeated AfD notice deletions on:

• Pt. Om Prakash Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

by

• 2405:204:a58a:cd5e:ac7f:2f3f:496c:654e (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 2405:204:a58a:cd5e:92a7:d49e:ddad:456f (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff, diff
• 2405:204:a58a:cd5e:a0fb:e988:c002:f130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff, diff

all likely socks of Opmishra123 (talk · contribs). Presumed sockmaster was warned here. SPI has yet to bear fruit. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked the range to prevent the disruptive editing. Any admin is welcome to make a determination of whether this is sockpuppetry or not. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely the same person to me. I've updated the SPI with a response and blocked the account for block evasion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

118.137.145.191, an uncivil and edit-warring user

Calvin Wisanto brought the incompetent behaviour of 118.137.145.191 (talk · contribs) to my attention. I think this page history best summarizes the IP's behaviour: adding information that failed verification, edit-warring over it and insulting/threatening others (the edit summary "Eh wisanto jgn sok tau ente blom pernah diciduk trus dibuang ke laut tinggal nama" translates to "Hey Wisanto, don't pretend to know it all; you have never been arrested and thrown into a to-be-specified sea"). Additionally, the IP has been repeatedly warned, but subsequently keeps blanking the user talk page. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the IP editor one final warning; any further misbehaviour (including removal of threads from this noticeboard or other people's talkpages) will result in an immediate block. Note, however, that I'd ask other users to refrain from edit-warring over the removal of warnings from the IP user's own talkpage in the future; the user is allowed by policy to remove such warnings from their own page if they choose to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

While I was writing this, some other admin beat me to blocking the IP; quite justifiably of course, as the IP kept edit-warring on this noticeboard trying to remove this thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The shared IP notice, on the other hand, cannot be removed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 10:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Block expired and the edit warring continues at Sam Ratulangi International Airport. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And he just blanked this discussion again. John from Idegon (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Ltbuni repeatedly, blatantly canvassing

On four pages related to far-right Hungarian politics, Ferenc Szaniszló, Romani people in Hungary, Magyar Hírlap and the Petra László tripping incident, Ltbuni has posted on Norden1990's or Koertefa's talk pages requesting help in conflicts, and often received the help they've requested:

• Yesterday, on 13 November, Ltbuni posted on Norden's talk page asking for help at two pages, Ferenc Szaniszló and the Petra László tripping incident. Norden promptly came to Ltbuni's aid at Ferenc Szaniszló.

• On 25 October, Ltbuni requests that Koertefa help them at Petra László tripping incident stating, "I don't want to start an edit war." This is practically indistinguishable from asking, "will you please edit war for me so that I can have my way without breaking 3RR.”

• 21 August, Ltbuni requests Norden's help at Magyar Hírlap, writing "Look at the controversy section?" Norden promptly replies that they will, and does. Ltbuni also posts at Koertefa's talk page, requesting help on this and another article, and complaining about me and Der Spiegel. Koertefa promptly replies favorably, and gets involved as well. The unsourced and offensive WP:OR about Roma immigrants that they added, basically a long excuse for hate speech that can be found nowhere in reliable sources, remains in that article.

I first encountered this particular Hungarian editing crowd after I wrote the wiki article on Szaniszló, where I wrote a meticulous survey of news coverage on him at the Talk Page. Eventually we had a dispute resolution, found here DRN, which also includes a very long review of RS coverage. The article remained stable for over three years, until Ltbuni removed the description of Roma as “discriminated against” (following "ostracized" of The Independent and The New York Times), calling this language "malicious" and false.

Content issues aside, I’m shocked at the brazen character of Ltbuni’s WP:CANVASSING, and also surprised that Norden and Koertefa indulge it (they don’t always help edit war, but they also never warn Ltbuni to stop). I have a suspicion there may be much more of this going on for many Hungarian political topics, but these recent incidents are clear enough. After Thucydides411 warned Ltbuni above canvassing, their response was unapologetic: more or less "bring it on." I think all of them should be warned, and Ltbuni deserves some sanction - they’ve been around since 2011 and should definitely know better. Lastly, Ltbuni has repeatedly declared that the international media is unreliable and instead favors their own interpretation of reliable sources [118][119][120][121][122] (all diffs from the last couple days), and this strongly suggests they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Update - this has been going on far longer, as I note in my reply to Koertefa below -Darouet (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Darouet: Some of the diffs you given above are not in English. Has this editor been informed of WP:SPEAKENGLISH. Can you provide a translation for what is being posted since you seem to be able to understand Hungarian (I am assuming that is the language being used)? It might make it easier for others to determine if any action needs to be taken if they knew what was being posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:I had already translated them on my Talk PAge, in response to M. Darouet's friend, Thucydides411 - th hey work together, (s)he simply did not want to present it to You. Nota Bene, Darouet knows that they are on my Talk Page, since (s)he posted below it...I wrote: Could You please take a look at this or that TALK page - I find it biased etc. What is Your opinion? or something like that. LOL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing --Ltbuni (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I don't speak Hungarian. In this case the talk section titles, references to me or the sources I've used, and immediate follow-up editing, all make the general gist of the canvassing obvious, though I've used google translate to try as best possible to follow. I can post google translate links tomorrow if that's helpful. -Darouet (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears from User talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing that Ltbuni is more than capable of discussing things in English, so perhaps he/she will comment here and explain the posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I know WP:SPEAKENGLISH does not apply to personal pages. There are some non-English text even on you page. Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I need some time to refresh my memories. First, I find it malicious what Darouet is doing: one sided edits. I have already translated and explained what I wrote on the Talk page of the Articles, and on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing. He is always sensible to sources, why did not he link it? Second: I offered him dipute resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3#Dispute_resolution - which he refused, and denounced me.

Regarding Ferenc Szaniszló: The whole article was a Political Soapboxing. It gave undue weight to a specific event (Mr. Szaniszló was given a medal, then he gave it back), and its only aim was pushing a certain political view of his, proving that the conservative Fidesz-gvmnt has close links to "neonazi Jobbik". Under the pretext of collecting Reliable sources, Darouet has now a list of links on the Talk Page, to promote his view, that the Jobbik party is neonaczi. Apart from the fact, that He can not speak Hungarian, so he must rely on the judgements of those journalists, who can't speak it either, we must keep in mind, that the article itself deals with Mr Szaniszló. Darouet added the story of a rock singer, some archeologist, long contemplation over the nature of Fidesz, its close links to radical Jobbik, the sufferings of Roma, the uproar of the US -Embassy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&diff=566210814&oldid=566210742 As You can see on the Talk Page, I was constructive, tried to upgrade the article. His responses were mostly political manifestos. BTW, as I have already explained it on my Talk page, Norden1990 and I were not on the same side regarding this article, I deleted his edit, he reverted it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&diff=735470868&oldid=735469085 Strange, that Darouet did not mention it in his "indictment", because I have already explained it to him on my Talk page days ago.... The tip of the iceberg where this whole "administrative" issue began, was the point when I linked the Romani People in Hungary article, which deals with the WHOLE situation of the Romani, and I removed the "who facing discrimination" half-sentence from the Ferenc Szaniszló article.

And as I have already explained it at least two times to Darouet, not the language ("they are discriminated") was malicious, but the whole context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3#.22Discrimination.22_a_.22malicious.22_term.3F. Strange enough, that wherever Darouet is in trouble, Thucydides411 turns up, uses the same language, , accusation etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltbuni (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To be continued...

Petra László tripping incident - Yeah, there was a debate over she tripped or not. Since the mainstream media was biased, as I proved, and she now has an OFFICIAL document, (proving that she did not) from the Hungarian Judicial System, I found that strange that in the lead we claim that she tripped, referring to CNN and other stuff, which "somehow" forgeted to report with what she was indicted, and also omitted the facts which ruin the picture of an innocent refugee (He was fired from his job!), so I took a look at the Talk Page, and found that only THREE persons were interested: Amin, Norden1990, Ltbuni. Since Norden had some administrative something with Amin, I guess he was blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Norden1990#3RR_.40_Petra_L.C3.A1szl.C3.B3_tripping_incident I found it appropriate to call Norden's attention, that he/she could come back. No one else was interested in this article. Neither Darouet, nor Thucydides411. Only three of us, one is blocked or something. Whom on Earth should have I notified?

And I can not follow the argumentation of Darouet. International media can not be wrong? So it is a crime to add other point of views? They finally got those Weapon of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Darouet suggests that "there is something going on in the Hungarian Politics-articles", and Ltbuni is a "promoter of hate speech", is "canvassing" - Are these the manifestations of the Good Faith? Or simple libelling? Which of my edits was not underpinned with data, heh? What is more, we have an edit war in the article Romani People in Hungary. From the "Edit History" it is clear, that the eager-beaver editor, who happens to share my oppinion is User: Borsoka. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romani_people_in_Hungary&action=history Where did I ask Borsóka to help me, with the abovementionned articles? Remeber, I am blatantly etc canvassing!

The following problems occured in the Articles:

Petra László: She OFFICIALLY DID NOT TRIP, the lead was misleading, suggesting that she did - now, it is neutral. I brought up sources. Reliable ones. No one can deny that. I brought examples which proved media bias towards Hungary, as well

Ferenc Szaniszló: Why is it relevant in an article on a journalist, to add that the Romani people face discrimination - I deleted it, but also linked the whole article, dealing with Romani

Romani People in Hungary: is it appropriate to insert FACTS that lead to violence against Romani? Even the murderers of Romani kids confessed that they decided to kill Romani after the mentionned crimes Why on Earth is that irrelevant? So instead of deleting the content I disliked, I tried give neutral title to the content: Beforeward it was: Romani crimes against Hungarian and another one was Hungarian crimes against Romani or something like that. I proposed: Violence between the two population. Then I was accused of being some nazi shit. I offered dispute reolution, Darouet declined, and kept on insulting me--Ltbuni (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And sorry to waste Your time, but I simply did not get answers on the Talk Page from Darouet, just insults, and Darouet refuses the Dispute Resolution with me as well... One must see this as well. And I refuse the canvassing thing: I could not be sure whether Norden1990 is on my side (we disagreed), and I did not invite someone, whom I should have (Borsoka), finally, I tried to reconcile the opponents. Take a look at the articles, please, and help to write them in a Neutral manner.--Ltbuni (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And finally, we really had a dispute resolution - but not on this specific sentence I questioned.--Ltbuni (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents: the issue seems exaggerated to me. It looks like Darouet has some disagreement with Ltbuni (probably a content dispute) and (s)he wants to use this ANI discussion to put pressure on him/her. Even if Ltubi's behavior could be classified as canvassing, the right way should have been to point this out to him/her, and not to immediately run here in hope to get him/her punished. Darouet's bias is evident even from the way (s)he presented the issue. I agree that probably it would have been better if Ltubi launched an RfC instead of asking specific editors, but that better option should have been suggested to him/her. I deliberately don't talk about content related questions (like whether those articles really connected to far right or which sources are reliable), since those questions only obscure the situation and preferably belong to the related articles. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Koertefa: Why didn't you explain to Ltbuni that canvassing is prohibited? It actually appears you've been encouraging this behavior. Ltbuni asked for your help at Victor Orban in 2015, and while I don't think you helped him, you encouraged his behavior and made no mention of canvassing. KIENGIR (currently blocked) also asked for your help on an Austro-Hungarian page where he was edit warring with Hebel in 2015, and though it's hard to know exactly what you replied, you don't make a note about canvassing.

It looks like you've actually been encouraging this for a very long time. Your very first edit to the Szaniszló article immediately followed Ltbuni's request for your help at your talk page, and your favorable reply. Ltbuni canvassed you twice for three more articles that April and September (you encouraged him in one case, didn't respond in the other).

There are many more instances where Norden or Ltbuni ask for your input, and it's hard to know without deep research whether these are all instances of edit conflict, or if they are asking for your editorial advice in acceptable, non-conflict situations. However, it's clear that in the many instances I've detailed, Ltbuni came to you knowing that you might agree with them in an edit war. If you ever did respond you encouraged them, and sometimes you helped.

I don't edit on Hungarian topics daily. When I do, if encounter some conflict, I want to be sure that the conversation which evolves is not prejudiced by directed, non-neutral recruitment of nationalist editors. In this case, you have been encouraging blatant canvassing in the context of editing conflict over Hungaration nationalist topics. I think this is really harmful to Wikipedia and I wish I had the time to look more closely at the extent to which this is happening beyond Ltbuni. -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I came across this editor yesterday at the László article following a related post at the Teahouse by Amin. At least in that instance, a lot of the problem was failure to WP:AGF, which led to a lot of frustration and killed compromise. We seem to have come to an amicable solution after a day or so and may actually be having productive discussion now.

Since this seems it may be a thing across articles and users, I would be in favor of a careful explanation of canvassing policy, and a warning to avoid the appearance of edit warring behavior for the foreseeable future.

Certainly it takes two to edit war, but Ltbuni seems to be the common thread, and they are an experienced user and should certainly know better after five years. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: see my reply to Koertefa above, and have a look at Koertefa's talk page. It seems there's a lot more of this that's gone on - more even than I can have time to fully investigate. -Darouet (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fairly well covered in a clear strong warning, with an understanding that future violations will almost certainly result in sanctions. TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Did I call You names? (nationalist etc) like Darouet keeps doing with me? Was I ready to accept Your version? Did I brought up arguments? And, with all due respect, I think the common thread are Darouet and me - when he/she noticed I don't accept one of his/her edits, he/she intervened in articles which are - according to him/her - out of the focus of his/her interest ("I rarely edit Hungarian articles...")--Ltbuni (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You've been openly canvassing for years, and there is still zero indication you understand that it's a problem. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And we have this latest special for today... Since I have only some 300 edits in English Wikipedia, and I only edited some 6 or 7 articles, I think I am a bit far from being a nationalistic, hate-speech promoter as you kindly call me...--Ltbuni (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations are meaningless without diffs. -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

QED --Ltbuni (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My original posts have 26 diffs. -Darouet (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My favorites quotes:

"Hungarian editing crowd",

"about Roma immigrants' (????) that they added, basically a long excuse for hate speech' that can be found nowhere in reliable sources, remains in that article. "

"calling this language "malicious" and false." - The context was that...

"I don't want to start an edit war." This is practically indistinguishable from asking, "will you please edit war for me so that I can have my way without breaking 3RR." - or simply it means that You have better command of English, and greater expertise on Neutral language...

"Repeated failure to understand something so simple - e.g. why a prominent media personality attacking a minority is related to discrimination, but not musical talent - strikes me as a major WP:COMPETENCE problem. Even if you didn't understand this yourself intuitively, newspapers, which are the basis of our content, are doing it for you, and even those have no impact on your understanding here." - woow, I've never been called stupid this kindly...

"I also believe it's not a coincidence that Norden and Ltbuni request the removal of the term because they don't believe the Roma are ostracized, and believe the media are wrong" - Yes, that's why we did NOT delete the discrimination section in the Romani People in Hungary. No, we don't think that media is wrong - we just say, that there is a phenomenon called media-bias. So just because it is on the net, it does not mean that it is true. Please, stop reading in my thoughts thnx!

" I don't edit on Hungarian topics daily. When I do, if encounter some conflict, I want to be sure that the conversation which evolves is not prejudiced by directed, non-neutral recruitment of nationalist editors. In this case, you have been encouraging blatant canvassing in the context of editing conflict over Hungaration nationalist topics." - You are my next hero, seriously!!!! I love You!!!--Ltbuni (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I said that you added hate speech (from a primary source) to Magyar Hirlap, and stand by that and all other statements you've quoted. -Darouet (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue, because this not the place to hash our content disputes, Ltbuni, do you understand why policy forbids editors from purposefully recruiting others whom they have reason to believe will join a content dispute on their preferred side? Do you understand that this applies regardless of whether you are right and someone else is wrong? TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do. But as I mentioned above, I dispute that I was canvassing. Why didn't I notify other editors (Borsoka), who was on my side, and had participated in the very same edit war? Borsoka could have strenghten my position! Why did I call Norden1990, who deleted my edits? Koertefa got a barnstar for being neutral in disputes, that's why I called his/her help, because with Darouet one can not talk calmly. Just look above, how he/she treats people who don't share his/her oppinion! And why did I drop both Borsoka's and Norden's version in the Romani people in Hungary article, if we were canvassing?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So no, you don't understand what canvassing is, and still think it's OK. Koertefa does too, if the last three years of diffs on their talk page mean anything. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking with You, man. I am waiting for Timothy's answer. --Ltbuni (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this, do you understand that, regardless of your intentions, notifying users with whom you have a history on contentious topics, appears to be a form of canvassing and is not permitted. Do you understand that from this point forward, having been notified of this in no uncertain terms, if there is a content dispute that requires outside opinion, you will seek that outside opinion, in the most neutral way possible, through one of the following methods:

• WP:Third opinion
• WP:Request for Comment
• Appropriate notice board such as WP:NPOV, WP:ORN, or WP:BLPN
• Or posting on related WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary

This is not a special sanction; this is the normal process that all editors, including myself, must seek input through from time to time. This is the way to do it correctly. This is the way you will do it from this point on. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So, if I have a problem, and the other user keeps insulting me instead of responding, I can not ask for Dispute resolution, like I did? I read that it was appropriate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ferenc_Szaniszl.25C3.25B3_discussion

And Where can I denounce Darouet, for insulting me, as Hate speech promoter/ nationalist editor crowd and other libelling stuff (see above)? This is totally NPOV, no good faith etc.--Ltbuni (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, is also a way of seeking outside opinion. However, DRN is also sometimes a cumbersome and lengthy process, and if another user declines to take part in that process, you have these other options of seeking outside input on the article talk. Again, these processes are in place because contacting editors with whom you have a history, especially on contentious topics, can be, or can be seen, as a form of canvassing, and are not conducive to resolving the disagreement. TimothyJosephWood 20:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

All involved can probably use a review of WP:CIVIL, a reminder to act like adults. Also, since this is apparently lost on everyone, accusing someone of hate speech (a crime in some areas), and libel (a form of litigation), may be construed as a legal threat, which is taken seriously. Please all review policy at Wikipedia:No legal threats, and consider this a warning to that effect. TimothyJosephWood 20:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I apologize to all, especially Ltbuni, if I gave them the impression that Ltbuni personally had engaged in hate speech. I was referring to Ltbuni's addition of a long quote to Magyar Hírlap of text from Bayer that was universally condemned by global media outlets. I am not a lawyer, and I do not believe that a reasonable interpretation of my comment would be characterized as a legal threat. However, if I am wrong I will gladly eat humble pie and retract my use of that term, even to describe Bayer's text. -Darouet (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Bayer, whose text I described as hate speech, has caused his paper to be fined for hate speech in Hungary: BBC source. From the BBC: "Journalist and activist Zsolt Bayer is best known for his xenophobic views and close ties to the ruling party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban... He also writes a regular column for conservative pro-government newspaper Magyar Hirlap in which he frequently makes anti-Roma, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim comments, often couched in extremely crude terms. The US Holocaust Museum says his statements are as extreme as those emanating from Hungary's racist, ultranationalist, and xenophobic Jobbik party. His newspaper has twice been fined by the state media authority for publishing articles deemed to constitute hate speech. In 2013 he wrote a vitriolic piece about Roma, and in 2015 he said all refugee boys over the age of 14 were "potential terrorists"." -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And how about the tone? I find Darouet's tone libelling, as it was libelling on the Talk Page, as demonstrated. What can I do? What if I see that he is doing POV pushing, and soapboxing, as he/she did so - lacking Good Faith?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think, meanwhie You responded. So it seems to You, that I was canvassing?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is a bad practice because it results in exactly these types of situations. TimothyJosephWood 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And how about Darouet, who accused me of criminal charges?--Ltbuni (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think most, if not everyone involved has certainly violated WP:CIVIL, and probably said something that could be construed by a frisky admin as a legal threat, so it's probably in everyone's best interest if we move on with our lives.

I think it's also important to note that ANI is not in the business of taking sides in content disputes. So if anyone is hoping to get the other party blocked on a technicality so they can win an argument, they are going to be disappointing. TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ltbuni: of course, you can also ask for Dispute Resolution, but in general (contrary to what some editors might suggest) it is not prohibited to notify individual editors, e.g., if they have a known activity of the involved topics (e.g., who have made substantial edits to the article in question or to articles with similar topics), participated in similar discussions in the past, are experts of the fields, who directly asked you to inform them, etc. The important thing is that the editors should not be pre-selected based on their opinions. I assume that you contacted me because of the former points (e.g., that I have some knowledge about these topics, made several edits to related articles and explicitly asked you to notify me in controversial situations) and not because of the latter one, since you had no guarantee that I would agree with you. My comments to Darouet and Timothyjosephwood are that: please, assume some good faith: not everybody who contacts another editor is canvassing, not everybody who edits a Hungary related article is a nationalist, not everybody who edits the bio of a right-wing politician is a radical, etc., even if he/she does not agree with you. The important thing is to discuss the issues and seek a consensus. Let's try to be more open towards each others points of views. Ciao, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I don't feel that I made a mistake,or something.Thanks anyway. The bias and the tone of Darouet still shocks me. He floods now the Talk Page of Magyar Hirlap, with administrative rules, just to decontextualize an excerpt of a journalist, presenting him as a kind of monster. Yes, Mr. Zsolt Bayer is not a nice person. But even he does not deserve this treatment just because international media does not cover every word of his, and citing the whole citation gives "undue weight" and would be "original research" and so on. I don't edit Hungarian articles because I am a "nationalist-crowd :) or "hate-speech promoter" or whatever, but because I have extra knowledge on these topics. Mr. Darouet replaces the gaps in his knowledge with his conviction. And that is no good, he relies on his "international, reliable media" and sweep away the context, how things sounds and works here. Anyone, Timothy, just take a look at the Talk Page, and remove the content the way he proposes! Totally the opposite result!--Ltbuni (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Timothyjosephwood is right that we should let it go. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reading through this thread, I have to say that I do not see WP:CIVIL violations from all sides. I see most people behaving civilly, but I also see Ltbuni significantly overreacting to perceived slights and unwilling to acknowledge Wikipedia policy on canvassing. FWIW, I think Darouet's contributions to the relevant articles and on the talk pages are very constructive, consistently going back to the reliable sources and making an effort to reach compromise. I certainly don't have that level of patience when I wade into these sorts of contentious subjects, which is a reason for my contribution to Wikipedia not being greater than it is. I strongly believe that a warning to Ltbuni is required, and that if they continue to disregard canvassing policy afterwards, sanctions are issued. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR

Dear Darouet,

(1) You have to always inform the one you mention in ANI discussion, why didn't you warn me?

(2) What you wanted to express with this "currently blocked", what goal you serve with this? You want to influence the discussion? How does it come here (anyway, the case is disputed and controversial and is being investigated, but it is not the subject now.)

(3) Without any intention to involve in this discussion I am confident that KœrteFa {ταλκ} is a very important member of Wikipedia regarding also his contributions/work with also Hungary related matters, and in emerging issues with high importance or against anti-Hungarian vandalism attempt we also ask help editors with more experience

(4) The Austria/Hungary related debates were resolved near 3 months, since then with the user you mentioned we are correct partners in editing with mutual respect since finally we understood each other, an extraordinary troublesome modification happened and we always struggle for truthful and professionally historical content! Koertefa's reply became so late that I even noticed more months later, he seemed inactive in Wikipedia and he did not even involve himself to that "incident". I don't even know why he should inform me about any "canvassing", I know what it is, and noone then considered any canvassing regarding this then.

(5) Please do not involve me anymore unnotified in any incident that anyway I am not belonging to. You could have just present the diff you debate without mentioning anyone who does not belong to the current incident's topic thus you are unable misuse my name/situation to influence something I have no business with! Thank You!

PS: I did not even read what this incident/discussion is about, I just read those fragments where you mentioned me, nothing else I have reacted. Even better do not even answer to me here if you have any such intention, do it on my personal page!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I didn't mention you in my original report, because I hadn't realized that you'd also (unsuccessfully) canvassed Koertefa. When I did mention you later, it was only once, and I tagged you so that you'd know you were mentioned. I assumed you would face no consequences for a single instance of canvassing. -Darouet (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

- I am sorry that you did not reply in my personal page, maybe I was not clear enough?

- Please avoid such statements that I would "canvass" Koertefa, that time the user I debated with expressed his concerns on possible canvassing, but what you refer was not regarded by anyone canvassing (not even a suspicion of that) and I did not wrote anything because I would be afraid of any consequence of that. Also in the future, if any i.e. troublesome edit would appear in an article, in case we may notify other users who have an expertise on the subject.

- Please be careful regarding relocating other user's comments. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

You wrote to Koertefa and to Fakirbakir asking to "PLEASE HELP" you at Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867), and 10 minutes later your edit to the article led to 11 reverts in 2 days (an edit war), where Fakirbakir helped you, until Ritchie333 protected the page. That is classic WP:CANVASSING in the service of an edit war. If you don't think that's canvassing, can you describe what canvassing is? -Darouet (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(1) - Every complain that time was investigated, an noone were judged or found guilty of canvassing, or similar, everything was in the service of against a blatant disruption attempt. BTW If you have read what you refer of: Appropriate notification - Editors known for expertise in the field/Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

(2) - I warn you again, stop involving solved happy end cases - I read the title, nothing more - that not any means belonging here

(3) - do not even answer to me here if you have any such intention, do it on my personal page! + I am sorry that you did not reply in my personal page, maybe I was not clear enough? -> Which of these two are not understood, as I see you are a first level English speaker, should I try French or you prefer other langauges? If you wish to communicate with me, feel free to wite on my personal page, there we may discuss and answer of all your questions, I am intending to finish here! Mercy!(KIENGIR (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Actually it appears you canvassed 3 editors in that instance [123][124][125], and while Hebel complained, I am unable to find any investigation or judgement of any kind. Can you link that?

I understand your request for me to comment on your talk page only, but will continue to reply here: I think it's important to keep a record of the diffs in one place. But I will leave a note on your talk page about policy so that in the future, you can avoid canvassing, or solicitation that could lead others to suspect canvassing. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that you did not understood - the 4th time - that I won't continue discussion with you here. I just repeat that you have failed to grasp unfortunately:

- Every complain that time was investigated, an noone were judged or found guilty of canvassing, or similar

- I warn you again, stop involving solved happy end cases - I read the title, nothing more - that not any means belonging here

Nota bene:

- "in the future, you can avoid canvassing" -> please stop defamation Appropriate notification - Editors known for expertise in the field/Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

- It appears to be you are "canvassing" cases, users that have no connection to the subject here and with such you want influence your report on others that has not any connection with any good faith. Moreove, you can totally ignore anything regarding that Austria/Hungary related incident, since it is a closed case, in the approx. due three months everything was checked investigated, punished, sanctioned, consensused what was needed or possible and all participants since then with a good faith and mutual collaboration are developing articles, the best and most beautiful outcome after any incident possible.

- On my personal page we can continue discussion, there you may have more answers, but prepare if you still do not finish and continue here (or just you mention me again), I will regard it as a harassment and willfull personal persecution. I have no business or involvement with the current incident, moreover as you should know every incident has to be investigated on it's own, so you better concentrate on the current subject, not closed cases, not even the real life there is two trial on one case that has been already trialed, with such acts you are just enweakening your position and arguments here on the current case - I still did not read and I won't do that -, so finally leave me in peace out of this!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

There's really no point in these walls of text. I think the diffs speak for themselves: there's a group of editors who often notify one another when they get into content disputes, and then come to one another's aid. What we really need here is for an admin to evaluate the messages listed above, to evaluate whether or not they constitute canvassing, and to issue any appropriate warnings or sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there are more points that the other party does not get, he tries to involve and influence the subject with cases, editors that have not any connection to the current subject. Yes, admin's should evaluate, as in the "admin input" section it has been already requested, but not anything that has already been outdated and closed. Bye.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

I have the same experience. See e.g. diff ( google translated) or here. Ditinili (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, the usual provocation, did someone invited you in this discussion? It is a healthy and constructive behavior to always check other user's contribution and persisting trolling? Why are you gluing on me, could not you let me in peace? Check WP:NOTHERE. Disruption attempts will be always discussed, much more if we are encountering provocation on a daily basis. Try to ignore me as much as it is possible and prove with this your claimed non-combattant&non-provocative attitude. Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

On 21 October 2016 (see diff above) I noticed that you use to contact a limited group of editors (some of them were mentioned in this discussion) with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way (see also this diff /translation/ or this diff /translation/). It seems that there are more editors who came to the similar conclusion. Ditinili (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Those editors have expertise in the field or belonging to relevant wikiprojects. There is no intention to influence something, I drawed the attention of relevant problem and I shared my concerns. I uphold what I have said about this earlier no need to repeat. Please do not commit the same mistake that you drag in something that not belongs here. I am not surprised you did not reacted to all of my questions, please prove your good faith aims, since encountering here has nothing to do with it. Write in my personal page if you want something, even answer there.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

It seems that it is not about "expertise", but a trial to organize a small working group at national level to defend "our cause" (in other words WP:CANVASSING). I am sure that you can find more experts on WP:WikiProjects, instead of contacting (repeatedly) a limited group of editors in your language. Ditinili (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree, it is again a defamation attempt I met countless times from you. "Our cause" is the valid, truthful, proper, accurate, etc. content. I think I have enough experience to decide who is an expert and the fact that you did not even take account my ask and note proves your bad faith approach and provocative manner. Simply choose another person to abuse, I will believe you if i.e. for the next three months you are not trolling or encountering me and your goal is really to build a good encyclopedia, instead of persisting a long-term personal persecution of another editor. If you have any reaction, post in my personal page, if you continue here, you just prove my point.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

Initially, I did not contribute to this discussion. However, somebody opened this issue and my comments + diffs are above. Ditinili (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you proved my point unfortunately. You contributed although this incident has not any connection me, you did it just and only to persecute me, since again you analyze mainly other user's contributions instead of a much more valuable activity in Wikipedia and simply you were not able to resist to harass me again, as since ongoing already 4 months ago.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

I would appreciate input from admins who have actually looked at those canvassing diffs (last few months, and going back to 2013), and at Ltbuni's, KIENGIR's and Koertefa's continued insistence that canvassing was not, and is not a problem. -Darouet (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, so you did not understood finally that ignore me and don't draw in me to something I have no business with. So I uphold that you are willfully harassing me and you want to deteriorate the attention of the current subject of the incident with already closed cases. Shame on you!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

Solution?

Is there a WikiProject Hungary (or whatever would encompass these various topics that people are notifying each other about) that everyone could put on their watchlists? Then anyone who started an article talk-page discussion that was stymied or that needed outside input could post a (hopefully brief) notice on the talk-page of that project. That way, everyone would be on neutral footing, there would be no cherry-picking of users or selective canvassing, and WP:CONSENSUS would remain more neutral. This would solve the problem of like-minded editors acting in self-selected teams. PLEASE NOTE: Notices posted on WikiProject talk pages must be completely neutral, or else they will be regarded as canvassing as well. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, Wikiproject Hungary exists, i.e. due to weight sometimes finally we ended up there. However, in the future i'll mainly use in case a simple ping, w/o further details that anyway could be read in the relevant talk pages. However, whom I contacted are mainly members of that project, thus they would have been informed anyway. Personally, your note I'll take serious. I have to emphasize I just only reacted that may have any affiliation with me here, I was "involved" this incident having no business with it - I did not even read it in whole. Furthermore, in my particular case I just found finally and read WP:Harassment and I am the victim of this since 4 months. Softlavender, I've promised you last time if I face any personal attack, I'll immediately act but my good heart was again more tolerant, however as I experenced WP:NPA sanctions are also applied when it did not even fulfill it's details, I was a victim of that and I am still investigating it. But WP:HA is totally that wiki rule I've been searching for, and I will immediately act if I face such again. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, you still haven't acknowledged that what you did was canvassing. And when other editors confront you about your canvassing, you plead that it constitutes harassment. Being asked to follow Wikipedia's editing rules is not harassment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thucydides411, yes, read back if it is still not clear why. Editor's does not confronted me because of any "canvassing", one just misused my name and situation to influence the discussion (although I have no business with this incident) here with closed cases where nothing of his claim found to be supported (and I told him if he does not stop harassing, defamating and involving me inproperly how I will regard this activity), the other user is fulfilling WP:Harassment since 4 months, that's why he trolled here unmentioned and uninvited. "Being asked to follow Wikipedia's editing rules" was not the main motivation of any of these, however it is funny to hear from those who did not follow these rules. Nevertheless, as I said, I'll give less chance to even be possible any accusation of "canvassing". Now I tell you, that if you have anything to say, head to my personal page, we should let already to have the main subject of this incident discussed regarding the involved ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: WP:HARASSMENT is a real thing. Stop accusing me of harassing you (6 times now). As WP:HA#NOT explains, harassment is not "tracking a user's contributions for policy violations; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight... Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." -Darouet (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR could you point to this supposed discussion that has taken place involving your canvassing actions? You claim that one has been held, yet nobody seems to know about it. The "accused" is also responsible for bringing evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, stop claiming WP:HARASS. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Mrrndude this isn't the time to pile on, though I appreciate your help. -Darouet (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Comment edited Darouet (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: thanks for your note. In this case, even posting at a larger forum like WikiProject Hungary could lead to accusations of canvassing, depending on the context. Consider that most problematic ARBEURO issues involve a dispute with nationalistic overtones between two or more nationalities/ethnicities. In that case, posting at one forum but not another will almost certainly bring editors supporting one side, but not the other: exactly the "problem of like-minded editors acting in self-selected teams." Posting on both would be a minimum requirement, but even then, in the context of a conflict this could potentially fuel, rather than resolve the dispute.

I would say that requesting feedback from a neutral body like WP:3O, WP:RFC or WP:NPOVN is the best way to go, escalating to WP:DRN only if these other options demonstrate it is necessary. Curious to know what you think, and anyone else who's seen many of these nationalistic disputes on Wikipedia (not just for Hungary or EE - they can occur in many places). -Darouet (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that DR is needed for every discussion, and there is no reason that a neutral posting on WikiProject Hungary could be construed as non-neutral or canvassing on articles that are Hungarian, as all of the articles mentioned so far on this thread are. That's what the WikiProjects exist for -- as a neutral place to gain input and assistance without the need to contact individual users directly. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Oh! I agree completely with respect to DR - that's why I wrote it should only be used as a last resort, if WP:3O, WP:RFC or WP:NPOVN failed. Do you have a concern about going to these general, non-nation-specific forums? However, please check my comment again re: Wikiprojects, as I'm not sure my concern came through? For instance, in this case the articles coming up relate to Hungary and the Roma, or Hungary and Austria, etc. If I chose to solicit opinions only from Wikiproject Romani, or Wikiproject Hungary, or WikiProject Slovenia, I would be certain to elicit vastly different responses. For example, here is an instance where someone was blocked, in part, for posting notice of discussion on some boards/projects, but not others, and where that choice could have conceivably prejudiced the outcome. Those distinctions would be far more subtle than posting at Wikiprojects for different nations. -Darouet (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

All of those links you posted are WP:DR, and are not necessary for every discussion. To repeat also what I said before, there is no reason that a neutral posting on WikiProject Hungary could be construed as non-neutral or canvassing on articles that are Hungarian, as all of the articles mentioned so far on this thread are. That's what the WikiProjects exist for -- as a neutral place to gain input and assistance without the need to contact individual users directly. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I slightly disagree. There are several articles (mentioned also in this thread) that are related to a common history of various nations and present-day countries. In this case, posting on WikiProject Country X and WikiProject Country Y is a more transparent and neutral way. Ditinili (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I see, I thought by DR you meant DRN. Sorry to belabor the point, but just to be clear, if there's a dispute between predominantly Polish and Ukrainian editors over Polish killing of Ukrainians in Ukraine, for instance, you wouldn't see Polish editors posting notice at Wikiproject Poland, but not Wikiproject Ukraine, as a problem, or vice versa? Just from a practical perspective of having seen these disputes in various iterations throughout the encyclopedia, I wish that would work, but I don't think it would. Actually I fear it could just inflame the situation by bringing more like-minded editors to the dispute. -Darouet (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion you are making non-relevant assumptions and analogies and I disagree with you about the current group of articles being discussed. Indeed any article under the banner of a specific WikiProject may consult that WikiProject for opinions and input -- that is what WikiProjects exist for. Therefore any article under the banner of WikiProject Hungary may consult WikiProject Hungary for input and opinions. I've said my peace and people can implement my advice or not, as they see fit. I won't prolong this discussion further. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, stop deteriorating, WP:Ha is mainly was not adressed to you, and again, ignore me and leave me in peace, I've explained more times my point, I am sorry I had to repeat because of an other user who still did not understood the case.

Mr rnddude, I have already pointed everything - see above - and I have no further intention to join/continue a discussion/incident I have no business with and were dragged improperly. WP:HA is valid regarding one of the users. Hopefully in the further participants will concentrate on the subject and the involved ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

And which user is WP:HARASS valid for? - Ditinili I'm guessing, as I recall you two have a history of conflict on Wikipedia. also I've been tracking this discussion for the entire week it has been up, I've read the comments above and you have only stated that it has been investigated - no evidence to support this though. Only, and only, because this has nothing to do with you have I not pressed you about some of your comments previously. Bringing up WP:HARASS for no obvious reason, however, crosses several borders of AGF and NPA. Any reasonable editor would expect a) evidence, and b) an explanation, for such a serious accusation. You may recuse yourself from further discussion if you wish, but, you can't expect to drop the harassment card and then be left alone. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion has run its course. I strongly disagree with Softlavender about the advisability of consulting only one national wikiproject in a dispute over two nationalities (for what I think are pretty obvious reasons), but nobody is going to get sanctioned by anyone. If anything, Softlavender is right about this: going to neutral boards is the best way to get outside feedback in a dispute. -Darouet (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I have to inform you you were always correct and nice to me, I did not forget it! I have no intention to involve or mention anyone here since, I don't want to have things that are not belonging here, I think it is obvious in which case who I referred. I even won't make extra effort to search for near one year old things regarding closed and happy end cases, you have to expect in a case that has been resolved near 3 months with admin attendance and intervention (protection,3RR sanction, etc.) everything has been checked. Sometimes admins does not even start a discussion or they just act or don't act. Again, just for you, as I recall the user I had a debate on Austria/Hungary matters had a suspicion of canvassing and he notified an administrator. In the end not any decision or action/sanction had been taken, on the other hand, the complainant also did not debated any outcome of this, we misunderstood eahc other in many cases but finally we understood each other. About AGF and NPA, I am the victim of these, I never made any report although if I would be so sensitive like others I could have raised many incidents, frankly not my style, I am generally a very peaceful creature who dose not seek trouble where it is not necessary. In the end because of my ignorance and good faith, I am the one who is accused about these. The debate is still ongoing that if I describe a negative behavior of a user - and it is true i.e. - could be taken as a personal attack? Since not I am responsible for the negativity, etc., but it is again a longer subject. a, The accuser has to prove it's claim generally, but as you say the accused has to also defend himself, well I won't repeat more what I have already told, that is my defence (also described here above)! b, My reactions are full with explanations, and yes, I agree that "This whole discussion has run its course". Regarding WP:HA of the other user I could easily present approx. 50/100 diffs, but it does not belong here also. I am for peace and happy&accurate editing, me and other users get used to many times we became the target of alleged or hidden anti-Hungarian feelings, after a while it becomes clear unfortunately. I am even afraid to imagine what's the situation in Israel/Palestine or Ukranian/Russian, or Turkic/Iranian issues. So you may understand that after a long while of provocation I have the right to be also sensitive! Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

Alright, KIENGIR I'll take all of the above at face value. As both you and the OP Darouet have no will to carry this discussion further I too will recuse myself from here on out. I assume that within a few days time this thread will be archived and the matter put to bed (unless somebody else wants to archive this first). I figured this was with reference to the threads I had been tangentially involved in a while ago. You'd be correct that this thread is not the place to start up a 100 diff discussion, that would be for another thread entirely. I wasn't asking for a hundred diffs either, you could have just pointed to a talk page and said "look through the archives" or some such. This is not necessary though. Right, carry on Mr rnddude (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Consequences?

So, are there going to be any consequences for Ltbuni's canvassing? Will there be any warning or sanction? Does an administrator want to weigh in on this? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I no longer think that's necessary: Ltbuni, if not contrite, has edited productively since I brought this complaint. I am however disappointed that there's been almost zero response here. I've never seen such a blatant case, and the message left by silence is clear: canvassing is OK, and may continue in the future. -Darouet (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thucydides411, Darouet:

The purpose of this board is to help protect and improve the project. It is not here for "consequences" nor for legitimizing complaints. If the user has been to this thread, and has acted differently accordingly, there is no admin action necessary. Neither is a formal warning necessary, as this thread itself well serves as such. TimothyJosephWood 23:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothyjosephwood, after your response, it's not apparent to me what the purpose of this noticeboard is. Above, a pattern of repeated canvassing by certain editors is demonstrated. What's more: the editors involved continue to deny that there's anything wrong in that behavior. Yet the outcome of this discussion is -- what exactly? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thucydides411: As far as I can tell, the purpose and scope of WP:CANVASSING has been laid out in no uncertain terms. Appropriate avenues for requesting outside input has been provided, including the DR process and contacting related WikiProjects. The original content disputes seem to have resolved themselves with good old fashioned discussion.

So, what exactly is the present disruption that these "consequences" are needed to prevent? TimothyJosephWood 14:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, the harm is that in every future conflict over a Hungarian-politics-related page, we can expect the same users to act in the same way -- to call the same circle of editors to help them edit-war. They don't acknowledge that this sort of behavior is wrong, so we can expect it to continue. So the next time they canvass, shall we come back here again? And what will the outcome be next time? If it's exactly the same as this time, then the canvassing will continue indefinitely. In other words, the canvassing policy is more of a suggestion than an actual policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia:Canvassing#How_to_respond_to_inappropriate_canvassing states that blocking a user is an appropriate response to repeated canvassing, which is what we're discussing here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And since the stakes are "every future conflict", I assume the only effective block would be indefinite? TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not a logical conclusion. One purpose of blocking a user is deterrence. If a user is temporarily blocked for canvassing, but continues to canvass, then a longer block might be warranted. Eventually, a user who consistently refuses to abide by Wikipedia policy might deserve an indefinite block. In this case, I can think of several appropriate responses to the history of canvassing demonstrated above, ranging from warnings to blocks. But what's certain is that if users are never sanctioned for canvassing, they'll continue to do it. Given that the editors involved continue to insist that there was nothing wrong with their canvassing, I think this is a near certainty in this case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems fairly clear that the user has already been warned, which does not require an admin. The reported user and OP seem to be in a nice place about the ordeal. Your chances of gaining consensus for a block when there is no ongoing disruption are probably near zero. So, it's possible this is a deceased equine. TimothyJosephWood 18:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Insults and abuse

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

---

I was insulted and abused by @Cagwinn:, a blocked user who has also threatened to continue edit warring once he is unblocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cagwinn UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

In the future, you need to provide evidence of the claims you are making. I did find one so far and it does seem like a personal attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cagwinn#November_2016 "You are a troll..", "You are mentally disturbed" there is no reason for those comments. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Honestly, your above comment was about as far as I read before concluding that the OP may have a legit case, and thus I started doing my own research. "Troll", if accurate, is perfectly acceptable (though only when accurate) and this user has engaged in some rather troll-looking behaviour. If this is not explained, then I think sanctions to be placed on Cagwinn for a supposedly bad-faith trolling accusation should be put on hold. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Cagwinn has clearly crossed a line by attacking UtherPendrogn personally. However, Uther has also crossed a line: once this report was filed, and he had informed Cagwinn of the report, he need not have further harassed Cagwinn on his user talk page. No discussion there is going to resolve the issue, so there is no point to further stir the pot. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe it's harassment, it's defending myself against his slander. Him pretending to be upset by writing in all caps is part of his victim-playing to try and pin the blame on me. Don't think for a second he actually feels he's been harassed, since all I've done is post my sources, defend my sources, notify him of my ANI, then defended myself against his repeated attacks after notifying him of the ANI, despite me stating I have no wish to talk to him. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If you have no wish to talk to him, then don't. There are two issues here. Firstly, when he told you to stay off his page, then you should do so, and only post on his page required notices. Then there is the issue of the personal attacks. I think the issue of you "harassing" him can be dealt with with a warning, don't do it again. When someone gets the message, you don't need to keep on posting. His personal attacks should be dealt with by a block. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

But that isn't harassment. Perfectly innocuous messages defending my sources and against his slander aren't harassment, and by calling it that you've played right into his game. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Continuing to post on his talk page after he asked you not to is harassment. Keep the conversations with him on the article talk page. Stay off his page. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

All you needed to do was leave a single message informing him of this report. Continuing to berate him for his personal attack was not a good idea. DarkKnight2149 20:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not berate him, I defended myself against his slander and accusations and threats. HE had no reason to comment on MY report, so that's on him. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. Once you posted the ANI notice, you should have STAYED OFF his page. I think an IBAN as proposed below may be in order. I also think the personal attacks need to be resolved as well. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - this sort of dispute has the potential to spiral out of control quickly, and both parties can make an argument that they were provoked by the other. Perhaps a 2-way interaction ban might be the best way to solve it? Maybe for a few months, until things calm down. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

An interaction ban is necessary I believe and the the behavior by UtherPendrogn during and after delivery of the AN/I notification was not civil. The stick should have been dropped as there was no reason to continue the back and forth on the talk page. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How was it not civil? UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your initial message was perfectly sufficient. And after you left it, he asked you to stay off of his Talk Page and yet you continued to go after him, shoving it in his face that he attacked you and accusing him of playing the "victim card". Those further messages weren't needed and do constitute harassment. And, with all due respect, what precisely were you defending yourself from? In those messages, all you did was accuse him of doing things. I'm not saying that he didn't do anything wrong, but your messages were excessive. DarkKnight2149 20:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

His vile behaviour demanded a lot of defending. Now he's accused me of vandalism (ask him for the diffs, I quite clearly haven't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I'm rather unconcerned by it, since I know my edits were sourced, in several other user's opinion correct, and only he is against them for no reason and edit warred over them. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is that you should have left it for an admin following the post of the AN/I notification. The continued debate after the fact has inflamed an already intense situation. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A debate he started, with malicious intent. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM is worthy of a review based on that response (even though you're not blocked, it's a worthwhile read). I'm not excusing their behavior either, i'm just saying you didn't help the situation. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A debate he started =/= "I'm blameless". UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we all say CANVAS, 1, 2, 3, 4 -- GB fan 21:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

CANVAS indeed. Why did you do that, UtherPendrogn? Just when the situation was seemingly wrapping, you unnecessarily made yourself look worse by breaking our policies. DarkKnight2149 21:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Look at the dates. At the time my AIV hadn't even gone noticed, and I though it was urgent given I was being threatened by Cagwinn. They stopped when I was asked to stop by Wordsmith and when I got the first reply here. I have no interest in influencing the discussion, and would like to stop contributing to it until Cagwinn gets his say and the opportunity to defend himself. UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

All of the messages were posted after you started this discussion, and the messages were not neutral at all. That's canvassing. DarkKnight2149 23:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's quite literally what I said. My AIV hadn't gone NOTICED, I didn't say I hadn't posted it. And they weren't canvassing. UtherPendrogn (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If you don't consider this canvassing, what precisely would you call it? The simple fact that the messages weren't neutral violates WP:CANVAS. Not to mention that you posted them after you posted this discussion here (which the time stamps prove). And as numerous editors are pointing out, your decision to deny responsibility for your actions is becoming tedious and doesn't instill much confidence that you won't do it again in the future. DarkKnight2149 20:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I offer the following proposal, an additional 24 hour block for Cagwinn for his multiple and vile personal attacks. I also offer a warning/admonishment to UtherPendrogn to stop the harassment and dropping the stick. Finally, as mentioned by The Wordsmith, a three month IBAN between Cagwinn and UtherPendrogn. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support as written by Sir Joseph. I think this is a reasonable resolution. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is nonsense as can be seen by the multiple provocations on Cagwinn's talk. Yes, the user is unhappy, and yes, they should not have made those statements. However, UtherPendrogn is clearly poking an opponent and provoking a fight. It is UtherPendrogn who needs to be told to leave Cagwinn alone, and to stop posting at the latter's talk. This ANI report is about an underlying issue which no one here has investigated, but where we can see that UtherPendrogn has pushed someone who was already frustrated. The solution is for UtherPendrogn to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I was not poking him or inciting him to do anything, I posted sources. There is no underlying issue, this is regular behaviour for Cagwinn, which you can see by his talk page history, only a few posts above mine. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Per the discussion above. I'm not sure if the block is necessary if Personal Attacks aren't a regular thing with Cagwinn, given the ban (blocks are to protect Wikipedia, not to punish the user). But other than that, I agree with the proposal. DarkKnight2149 20:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

They are unfortunately a regular thing with him. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer (one of them, anyway). A very sensible solution to this issue, and hopefully in three months cooler heads will prevail. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support as an uninvolved third party. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Iban and strong warning for Uther, as it's quite clear they're provoking Cagwinn. Cagwinn's comments are unacceptable, but again, Uther is engaging in provocation; a lengthened block would be punitive rather than preventative as Cagwinn's in no position to continue the dispute if Uther stays off their talk page. If either of them pursue the dispute after the remedy, block them then.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not provoking them. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@UtherPendrogn: You appear to have a fairly bad case of I didn't hear that. Multiple editors have observed the interaction between you and Cagwinn and determined that your actions constitute provocation. Your insistence that you are not provoking Cagwinn speaks to your inability to recognize the impact of your actions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've heard it, but I don't agree. And several other editors have observed that it wasn't provocation. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Cagwinn has agreed to quit responding to Uther and being uncivil, and consents to abide by the proposed interaction ban.[126] At this point I don't see how an extension of the current block would be preventative.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and to the claim that Uther has not been provoking Cagwinn, in addition to the posts to Cagwinn's talk, they've also been going around making changes to articles Cagwinn frequents, often using quite provocative summaries. Cagwinn's responses aren't acceptable, but they're not coming in a vacuum either.[127][128][129][130][131][132] To Drmies's comment on topic bans below: I'd hate to see Cagwinn forced out of articles he's previously edited constructively based on this dispute.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not at all provocation. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cúchullain, thank you for those links--if I had looked at them earlier I might have blocked already; we've had enough of these antics. Yes, they are provocative, yes, there are personal attacks in the edit summaries, and yes, you were correctly called out for canvassing in the section above. Enough already: you have run out of credit. It's pretty obvious you followed the other editor to Maelgwn Gwynedd to harass them and revert their edits--so besides canvassing and making harassing comments on their own talk page, we now have hounding as well. Drmies (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me?! I am interested in Celtic History, I took a random page and updated the incorrect, unsourced information on Maelgwn Gwynedd. I didn't know he was a "curator" of the page (which there aren't meant to be on this site, but whatever I suppose). I reverted his edits when they provoked ME and insulted ME and slandered ME by calling it OS nonsense, then calling ME an idiot. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn: Your refusal to acknowledge your part in this only hurts your own case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support the interaction ban, the extension of Cagwinn's block, and the reminder to UtherPendrogn to drop the stick much more quickly if they encounter a situation like this in the future. I disagree that UtherPendrogn's posts at Cagwinn's talk page were harassment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  @UtherPendrogn: This discussion is overwhelmingly in support of an interaction ban, and people seem to agree that you needed to drop the stick and stop posting on Cagwinn's talk page even if you felt you were defending yourself or trying to fix the situation. With that in mind, I'm baffled that you decided to post there again (after saying you would stop), and now you've just posted again even though their reply to your apology clearly indicated that they do not want you posting on their talk page. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before, that you were not intentionally provoking and badgering Cagwinn; I no longer do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Although I do not think it neccessary to block Cagwinn as he already said he would accept the ban and stop being uncivil. UtherPendrogn's actions are also worrisome and how he/she handled this was poor. The fact that he/she has not even accepted their wrongdoing and canvassed is almost as bad as the personal attacks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

How can you even say that? I did nothing wrong except not dropping the stick (for two messages) after reporting him. I did not canvas, I was trying to get someone to react quickly since he sent me threats, and if you seriously think that's as bad as calling me insane, stupid, saying he hopes I get banned (something that isn't even done on this site), or that he hopes I get "dealt with", is the same as not dropping the stick for two messages and trying to get some assistance againstthreats... UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn sadly I see more administrative action in your future. I am not excusing the insults thrown at you, but you continuously deny any of your wrongdoings (hounding, canvassing, insulting-edit summaries) and, most recently, went after Drmies just for having his take on the issue. Are you with all honesty telling me everyone, with years of combine experience and know-how, are wrong in this case, something some deal with on a regular basis? Please, spare me. At least Cagwinn has the humility to admit his mistakes; you, on the other hand, show no signs of wanting to improve.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

He quite literally denied he did anything wrong in his apology. And I didn't "go after Drmies". I brought to attention the fact that deleting a post on another user's page would mean that user might commit the same error. They then removed my message saying they didn't understand, so I reverted it back. They reverted it again, so clearly they're not interested. I gave up. I can only hope the other user will be able to avoid making the same mistake again. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• No. iBans suck; enforcing them is difficult. (And I do think Uther's continued posting on Cagwinn's talk page is harassment, and I warned them I would block if they do it again.) They're fighting over one issue in one article--so who gets it? Block Uther if they post on Cagwinn's talk page one more time, or insult them someplace else. Same with Cagwinn: one more stupid insult about mental situations and they get a seriously long block. As for the article they're fighting over, if y'all want an iBan, make that article off-limits to both of them. Topic bans are more easily enforced then iBans--we've all seen how people try to get around them. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm done with this Uther. They are disruptive, uncollaborative, and seem to want to tirritate others. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Why, because you deleted my posts that tried to help someone with contributing to Anglo-Saxon phonology in articles, which is something that really needs to be done? "And I didn't "go after Drmies". I brought to attention the fact that deleting a post on another user's page would mean that user might commit the same error. They then removed my message saying they didn't understand, so I reverted it back. They reverted it again, so clearly they're not interested. I gave up. I can only hope the other user will be able to avoid making the same mistake again." UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
      • You need to STOP already. You were "ahead" before and you were advised to quit then and you failed to listen. It most likely not end up the way you expected if you continue to harass people. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
        • He deleted help I was trying to provide to a user because it was "pointless needling", doubtless since I did ask for an apology, which I should not have done. I am not harassing him, and if he considers reverting an edit ONCE on his page harassment, then I apologise for that. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Oh Jesus Christ. The nonsense continues. This is not you helping someone, it's you being a totally patronizing asshole to someone seven and a half months after an edit was made. I encourage everyone in this thread to look at that talk page. You totally insulted the editor--I removed it, and the editor thanked me for it. And no, I don't consider you reinstating a message on my talk page to be harassment, because I got pretty thick skin and you can't touch this. I do consider it rude and ill-mannered--but nice non-apology apology, man. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
            • Unbelievable. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that he returned to Cagwinn's Talk Page, and now this? The user seems to expect everyone to apoligise to them without admitting any major wrongdoing themself. Uther seems to be holding grudges now. I'm slowly starting to consider proposing a block. DarkKnight2149 20:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Partial support I accept the blocks, but not the TBAN. Uther is still being disruptive, uncollaborative and tendentious with IDHT and possibly a touch of NOTTHERE. They are seriously shooting themselves in the foot. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I should have dropped the stick, but I wasn't harassing them. It ends there, really. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn so you're kinda willing to accept you did something wrong when threatened with a boomerang? That is still not very encouraging. I really hope admins take a close look at your disruption too.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I accepted I did something wrong from the get-go. User:GorillaWarfare can testify to that. And it wasn't a threat, it was a link telling me to stop shooting myself in the foot, not a threat. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any point in continuing this. Overwhelming support has been given, and the situation can only aggravate from here, so might as well end it. Am I allowed to support? UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban, support lengthening blocks on both users if they can't learn to edit without fighting other editors. Cagwinn has been chronically engaging in ad hominem attacks on a handful of experienced Wikipedians, myself included, which is probably why Uther tried to canvass me. Cagwinn is very WP:OWNy about the articles he edits, and has vowed to edit war until he "wins". I actually briefly considered that Uther was a bad hand sock of Cagwinn, trying to entrap Cagwinn's targets into more drama. I think they are both headed for community bans if they don't shape up promptly. Personally, I'm doubtful Cagwinn is capable of it. I haven't seen enough of Uther to predict if he's capable of change. Both are wasting our time. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is ridiculous. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Cagwinn seems to believe that CorbieVreccan is holding a grudge against him for reverting one of their edits at Dôn ([133]). This claim might not hold any water, though. DarkKnight2149 22:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Cagwinn does tend to focus on those who set limits on him. He was blocked for edit-warring. I am one of the editors who reverted him during his spree. This is not the only article I've had to revert him on. See the discussion on Cuchullain's talk page, notably Cagwinn's personal attacks and vows to continue edit-warring on the 'pedia till he "wins". - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Dôn is an area where Cagwinn behaved deplorably, and it's the largest factor in the block he's currently faced with. However, it has little to do with the current dispute, except that it's another case where Uther inserted themselves to feud with Cagwinn,[134] and then antagonize him over.[135][136][137]--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Although he still doesn't seem to trust CorbieVreccan, the good news is that Cagwinn now hopes to silently wait for this discussion to play out ([138]). DarkKnight2149 22:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cagwinn is currently on a 72 hour block I think. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Like CorbieVreccan, I had a suspicion that Cagwinn and Uther were possibly playing a Good hand/Bad hand game because they both use the exact same justification for reverting (my sources are impeccable, yours are wrong) and a possibly deliberate inability to discern when they might have been at fault in interactions. I think it's unlikely but you never know. I support an iBAN but I have little faith in it with these two editors. Cagwinn immediately went back to reverting after the Dôn article released from 24 hour page protection [139]. His attitude remains that other editors are impediments to his infallible judgment. Incivility and ad hominem appears to be his default response. Uther is either unwilling or unable to back away from conflict or see the fault in his behaviour. Time will tell whether this is correctable. Extending their blocks is an option but I'm not sanguine about either of them reforming. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's to hoping that they don't continue the incivility here when the block expires. DarkKnight2149 23:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I hope not but I suspect the outlook is dismal. In the interests of transparency, I should mention that I was involved in a content dispute/edit war with Cagwinn on the Dôn article a few days ago. I'm not proud of it and I can't remember when I last made that mistake, probably back in the oughts. In my opinion above, I've tried to stick with an objective view based on my personal interactions and observations of both editors. YMMV. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I have looked into Cagwinn's claims of CorbieVreccan and Pigman holding grudges against him. Evidence says otherwise. CorbieVreccan seems to have been involved with the Don article for quite some time now. CorbieVreccan saw this thread either through one of the involved users' contributions or because they have ANI on their watchlist (it is an admin board). Pigman was notified of the situation by Uther, who tried to seek help from them. Pigman was perfectly reasonable and neutral in their messages. Uther then posted on Pigman's talk page again about Cagwinn "winning", which was again shot down by Pigman. CorbieVreccan then redirected Pigman to the ANI discussion. I fail to see the supposed grudges and canvassing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry for not clarifying earlier, but I thought it was pretty clear. As far as I can recall, my first encounter with this Uther person was when they showed up on the Don page a few days ago. I looked at their talk page, saw they were already in fights with people, and backed away. Then they started posting on my talk page, which I ignored. I have ANI watchlisted, and noticed that folks I'd had recent interactions with were posting here a lot, so I came over to see what was up. When I saw that this diff mentioned me:[140] and then saw the weird charges from Cagwinn that I was somehow in a conspiracy with every random person who posts on my talk page, I decided to weigh in. I saw the canvassing diffs also mentioned Pigman, so I notified him:[141]. While a diff isn't precisely "Tell people you're discussing them at ANI" it's in the spirit of the thing, hence, the notice. Believe me, I was far from thrilled at Uther's attempts to drag me into this; and Cagwinn's immediate use of it to further attack me is what made me wonder if they are a particularly bizarre sock drawer. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - the IBAN and warnings to both editors, Oppose the additional 24 hour block (unless applied to both editors). Cagwinn's comments were utterly unacceptable, and block worthy on their own, but, Uther's behaviour has been equally unimpressive. They have harassed Cagwinn on their talk page, even after filing this AN/I and being aware than an IBAN is on the table - which would make their comments a vio of the IBAN had it been in effect. They then (correction, they canvassed around the time of posting of the OP) canvassed both CorbieVreccan and Pigman with the intent of swinging the discussion in the opposite direction - though this has evidently failed, both Corbie and Pigman are clearly being impartial despite claims to the contrary by Cagwinn. I find this to be equally poor judgement and behaviour. Both editors refuse to properly acknowledge and accept their roles in this mess. Cagwinn has at least agreed to the IBAN but these[142][143] demonstrate that they're not really ready to let it go. Uther, as demonstrated by their continuous IDHT in the thread above, also believes themselves to be blameless in this issue. There needs to be some sticks dropped, one stick for Uther, and at least three for Cagwinn. I know IBAN's are just another problem, but, short of a TBAN on anything about Celtic Britain I really don't see this getting fixed up by blocks. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I did NOT canvas them afterwards but before, I posted non-neutral messages, though not out of malicious intent (what happened to everyone droning on about WP:Good Faith?). I posted those after the ANI but before a response got here and before WordSmith told me not to post after the ANI. "UtherPendrogn"

Those comments were not neutral, you did not go to the admins' talk pages and ask for input. You declared outright that you were blameless and asked for the admins to act as is required - it would have been neutral if you'd posted to the two admins with; Hey, there is an issue at AN/I in which you may be interested in. Your point-of-view - accurate or otherwise - immediately ended any neutrality in the comment. I was insulted and abused by User:Cagwinn, Despite him insulting me profusely and calling me insane and Cagwinn seems to have known Doug Weller would be biased towards me are not neutral statements, not in the least bit. Even though the first two are accurate, they are still not neutral. (Strike reason - unnecessary "berating" when fault has been admitted) You're correct about canvassing before going to Cagwinn's page, an error on my part - struck that part out. You're logged out btw - perhaps log in and resign the comment, but, that's up to you. Again, all you should do is drop the stick, and stay away from Cagwinn. Read up on WP:IBAN, so that you are aware of the actual restrictions imposed. Such as, you may not revert any of their edits - except blatant obvious vandalism (I highly recommend you don't try to do that either). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you reading my comments? I said they were non-neutral and have now said six or seven times that I should have dropped the stick. UtherPendrogn (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn, sorry I misread non-neutral as neutral. I've struck the part about neutrality out. When I've got five different things in front of me, I do occasionally make a mistake. Mea culpa. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

These are serious accusations, and that's two errors now. Yes, I asked for the admins to deal with the situation as is required, banning him or me, blocking him or me, warning him or me. I did not think to post a calm and neutral message since it was not a caln situation. As to the IBAN, I fully understand its implications. It's ridiculous to berate me for doing something that might be an offense in the future if the IBAN is established. You have also violated the future IBAN between you and me, for example. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You might want to read out any of the aggressive tone you've read into my comments. I can understand why you might think it's there, but, it really isn't. I didn't point you towards IBAN to club you over the head with it, but, because there is more than just a user and user talk page ban involved. That said, my "serious" accusations are still accurate. I struck out the "berating" because you'd acknowledged it in the last comment - that goes nowhere to discredit the claim, only my reading of your comment. More importantly though, do you want to consider doing anything about your IP comment, those give away some level of privacy - geolocation for example. You don't have to, but, anybody can associate your IP, and thus your geo-location, with you now. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Is that a threat? "UtherPendrogn"

Sheesh. No. It's a reality. Now start signing in please. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Drmies - Thanks for both your comment and hiding the IP address for Uther. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @UtherPendrogn: FYI... Drmies just did you a huge favor and saved you from possible WP:OUTING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh Jesus Christ. The nonsense continues. This is not you helping someone, it's you being a totally patronizing asshole to someone seven and a half months after an edit was made. I encourage everyone in this thread to look at that talk page. You totally insulted the editor--I removed it, and the editor thanked me for it. And no, I don't consider you reinstating a message on my talk page to be harassment, because I got pretty thick skin and you can't touch this. I do consider it rude and ill-mannered--but nice non-apology apology, man. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC) UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I cant think of any malice Drmies would have by hiding your IP address. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Uther, we might refer to IP users as "anonymous users", but you're actually more anonymous when your IP address isn't visible. I'd say he did you a favour. DarkKnight2149 19:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Uther, you were warned several times to drop the stick. It's reaching the point where my new proposal will include a block for you and not just a warning. I suggest you take a break and let things settle down and stay away from pages that get you into hot water. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Uther, you're welcome. I give up on you: you left a few more edits here and there from your IP address--perhaps another admin cares enough about you to remove mention of that IP. Now, I'm probably an asshole, but not yet a bitter one. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If @Drmies: is an asshole, then I wonder whether the term is of any utility at all around here, as it would presumably be about as limiting as "living people." (Although, of course, any of you bots who feel slighted by that are free to respond.) I am beginning to think that the conversation here has spiralled completely out of control, and, supporting the original proposal, I also, regretfully, think Sir Joseph's last comment above might merit support if things don't improve soon. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, just thought I'd post a content-less comment so that my contribution can confirm that - with my appearance on the scene - things have indeed "spiraled completely out of control." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have now arrived, so now things may be said to have spiraled completely out of control. EEng 06:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support block and warning proposals but oppose two-way IBAN. I don't see any evidence that Cagwinn was deliberately following UtherPendrogn around or poking them. The disruption on that front is entirely one-sided, and two-way IBANs in these cases only tend to make the problem worse. If UtherPendrogn wanted, he could go around manually reverting edits Cagwinn made before the IBAN and doing other things to continue getting under Cagwinn's skin as he has been doing, and if Cagwinn tried to report such stealth-violations he would be liable to being blocked just for noticing them ("Why were you still watching UtherPendrogn's edits? Wasn't the two-way IBAN introduced as a result of your disruptive behaviour?"). The IBAN should be one-way, unless some evidence can be found of Cagwinn deliberately hounding or otherwise antagonizing UtherPendrogn. (Yes, I know sometimes one-way IBANs can also be abused, but in this case we have no reason to believe it would, and it would expire in three months' time anyway.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Changed to oppose all further sanctions against Cagwinn for the time being. UtherPendrogn edit-warred and received a block, while explicitly proclaiming his intention to keep edit-warring because he is right on the content and because Cagwinn had been "banned". Part of the motivation for the one-way sanctions against Cagwinn appears to be his having called UtherPendrogn names like "troll", but UtherPendrogn's own behaviour, such as template-bombing his own user page, make this epithet seem somewhat apt. UtherPendrogn should explain how this edit was not trolling, or else no one should face sanctions for calling him a troll. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

He's started reverting to absolute nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cagwinn UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hounding and harassing your nemesis is a sure pathway for you and your IPs to be blocked. I suggest you back completely away from Cagwinn and their edits until this discussion here is closed. --Adam in MO Talk 07:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

His recent contributions being "absolute nonsense" has nothing to do with my proposal that the IBAN be one-way, but I can't figure out why UtherPendrogn would want to point this out unless it was to defend himself against what I wrote. Anyway, neither this nor this (his only edits since the block expired) look like "absolute nonsense" to me. I am not a topic expert and cannot tell if these claims are objectively "true", but they look possible, and assuming they accurately reflect their sources and the sources are reliable, there is no problem with them. I am not difficult to convince to drop my assumptions, but evidence needs to be provided. I am not a fan of including quotations in footnotes unless those quotations directly verify the material in question, and Gwrdeber doesn't appear in the quoted portion, but I know some users like to include quotations as more of a "decoration" than direct proof that the source says the same thing their text does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and close - User:UtherPendrogn has been indeff'd for abusive behavior so the discussion is moot, this should be a last warning towards Cagwinn though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang?

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

---

So yeah, I am not sure how much of this has already been brought up, but UtherPendrogn is showing serious signs of WP:NOTHERE behaviour. I dug a bit into the background of the dispute (independently of the above discussion).

• While Cagwinn has been here for years and this was only their second short block for edit-warring, UtherPendrogn has made only 70 mainspace edits, starting this summer.
  • Of these 13 include "undid" or "revert" in the edit summary
  • One of those was an explicit admission to reverting Cagwinn solely because the latter had already been blocked for edit-warring.
• His only edit to his own user page was such obvious trolling that I don't even want to post the diff for fear of crashing someone's browser (see the page history), and that was only a few days ago.
• His edits to the user talk namespace border on WP:BLUDGEON and make me fairly confident that I too will soon have a thread on my talk page spun out of this ANI discussion, because so many others already have.[144]
• His only edit to the Wikipedia namespace prior to forum-shopping his dispute with Cagwinn on AIV and then here was to post this somewhat odd and non-specific complaint.
• His edits to the article talk space are not generally anything to write home about either. They started less than a week ago, and he has posted on four unique pages. His most recent edits to each are enlightening. Here he synthesizes four books with no page numbers, apparently as part of a proposal to replace sourced material already in the article. Here he openly engages in OR based on genealogies. This appears to be yet more OR. And here he accuses an admin in good standing (an Arbitrator no less!) of engaging in "hounding".

Whether or not any of the above discussion of Cagwinn goes anywhere, someone really needs to keep an eye on UtherPendrogn, and at least explain to him the difference between blocks and "bans", and the fact that it takes two to edit-war, and he should explain how the outrageous user page edit was not meant as trolling.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No, he'd been blocked for continuing to post nonsense to that page. That's not OR, it's Matasovic. Please don't call something you don't understand OR. And the genealogies themselves are our only source on the names and something Cagwinn has written about himself in research papers. Besides, it was merely a comment, I wasn't saying the article or any edits to the article were wrong. You don't "engage in a genealogy", they're our only source for every single British character barring Gildas, Vortepor, Maelgwn, Cuneglas, Aurelius Caninus and Custennin of Dumnonia.~Also, I know the difference between a block and a ban, and that admin HAS been hounding me. I suppose you've not scrutinised them, yet that being the point of ANI. Not to mention that in the Insults and Abuse section, you mentioned you only read a fraction of the posts there and are judging me on incomplete information, "I am not sure how much of this has already been brought up".UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, WP:You're one to talk.[145] UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't throw my block log (most of which was based on technicalities, and many of which led to later apologies from the blocking admins) in my face. It's a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and has no bearing whatsoever on my ability to properly analyze your behaviour. I tried to remove your copy-paste of my entire block log for these reasons (as well as for it looking like another TLDR wall-of-text), but had an edit-conflict. If you re-add itpersist in this kind of disruptive behaviour (including editing your own posts multiple times, no doubt causing much frustration to others trying to post), I will request that you be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) No, he'd been blocked for continuing to post nonsense to that page No, he had been blocked for edit-warring. The block had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of his edits, as the admin who declined his unblock request (and the admin who unblocked your unblock request) clarified. "Matasovic" is not a word that appears in my dictionary. Is it the name of one of your unnamed sources? Good. Please learn to cite these sources in the future, rather than waiting for someone to (accurately) describe your edits as OR and then throwing the source's names in their face. And please stop trying to include extensive discussion of article content on this page. If you know the difference between a block and a ban, then why did you say Cagwinn had been banned? I don't see anything elsewhere about him having been subjected to a ban. And yes, I did only read a fraction of the posts from the ANI peanut gallery. I am interested in what you and Cagwinn actually did, not what you and other people say Cagwinn did or what Cagwinn and other people say you did. (I initially read as far as I needed to come to the false conclusion that Cagwinn was making unsubstantiated personal attacks against you, and supported extending their block for this reason. Looking at what was actually going on caused me to change my mind. Claiming that my not reading the above discussion biases me against you is ridiculous, because it was actually the other way around.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't threaten me, especially with a block for editing my posts since it might bother users adding entries. That's you, isn't it? You had to copy paste your message since I edited it before you posted? Too bad. UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) UtherPendrogn, you are not making friends very easily around here. I suggest you give it a break and let the rest of us figure out how to deal with this problem. Your bludgeoning the discussion, creating deliberate edit-conflicts, and then sarcastically attacking other users for criticizing you for doing this is not going to make your life any easier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn - I haven't threatened you. Try reading everything again. You'll notice two distinct posts by two different people. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh really, please tell me more about how two people can be on the same Internet page at the same time. I was talking to Hijiri, it clearly wasn't directed towards you. UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about making friends, it's about adding to the encyclopaedia, which Cagwinn is destroying. UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to assume you just didn't understand what I meant by you are not making friends very easily around here and doing this is not going to make your life any easier, so I'll rephrase it again: you are in a hole and you need to stop digging yourself deeper or it will be too late to climb out. When I said "Boomerang?" (note the question mark) I did not say or mean UtherPendrogn is an obvious drain on the project and should be blocked immediately and indefinitely. Your own behaviour since then has made me think that maybe I should have said that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting that spam entry and just linking to it. That's preferred if you must add it, but, again, it won't bolster your argument. Many respected editors have extensive block logs. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about edit conflicts and why they serve to piss everyone off :)

Then don't respond to my comment - I've moved it for you, respond to the comment you are intending to direct it towards. Plain common sense. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Your edit conflicted. Plain common sense. UtherPendrogn (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Then feel free to use {{edit conflict}} or note edit-conflict in your edit summary. I can't read your mind, so why you expect me to know your intentions is beyond me. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC) So, do either of you have a problem with collapsing this entire TLDR discussion, everything below 09:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC), as off-topic article content discussion and/or mutual complaining about how annoying edit conflicts are for all concerned? :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Feel free to collapse my subthread (10:37, 1 December 2016 onwards) under; "Discussion about edit conflicts and why they serve to piss everyone off :)", as for you subthread with Uther, that's between you two. Note; I'm assuming Uther doesn't mind our off-topic discussion being closed. If they do, then, nevermind just leave it up. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Done and done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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

Considering that UtherPendrogn has been continuing the attacks on Cagwinn long after the latter was blocked for bad behaviour, will not drop the stick (the most recent was "it's about adding to the encyclopaedia, which Cagwinn is destroying", just above), and has been causing one of the biggest time sinks I've seen in, well, days, I have blocked for 24 hours. Enough is enough, and if this disruptive battleground behaviour continues when the block expires, I will block for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all that resulted in was abusive escalation, so I've upped it to indefinite and have revoked talk page and email access. See their talk page for details, where there is an unblock request open. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 attack/false accusation against me in an edit summary

User:Oncenawhile has been making non-stop personal attacks against me for years, culminating in now including one in an edit summary, where he accused me of WikiHouding him after another editor and I asked him to provide reliable sources for his edit. (The edit involved inventing his own classification system for ethnoreligious groups and arbitrarily placing different groups within his own made up categories.) He did not provide a link which supported these categorizations, instead he added one which described a different categorization system and wrote "reversion of Drsmoo wikihounding across unrelated articles." [[146]]. Per my understanding, this is explicitly forbidden Help:Edit_summary#What_to_avoid_in_edit_summaries It's just the latest in a string of uncivil personal attacks he's made against me and others, the other most recent one being when he posted on my talk page that my posting was reminiscent of a Milli Vanilli song, whatever that means. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drsmoo&diff=744867813&oldid=738479488 Drsmoo (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• New or innovative scholarship should not be cited to a dissertation--a dissertation might be acceptable, in certain circumstances, but I don't see those here yet. Oncenawhile, can you drop the snark? Drmies (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, the link was intended to point to the section in the dissertation which summarizes existing scholarship - it walks through in a methodical fashion the various scholars which have published classification systems. I was being lazy in not explaining this properly, and/or not pulling out the underlying sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my accusation of WikiHounding. The evidence is below:

• By number of all time edits: [147]: 35% of all his edits have been on pages which I have also edited within the prior 24 hours, and that figure goes up to 45% if you remove the time constraint
• By number of edits in 2016: [148]: 63% of all his edits have been on pages which I have also edited within the prior 24 hours, plus those on my talk page, and that figure goes up to 70% if you remove the time constraint
• Edit history analysis: We have had a very long running dispute on Southern Levant, ever since I reported Drsmoo for edit warring back in 2011. The dispute simmered for a long time, and began to get very heated from late April 2016, when Category:Southern_Levant was put up for deletion. Since then Drmsoo has become involved in numerous unrelated discussions across the encyclopaedia, each time his involvement came only after I had already made an edit or was involved in a discussion: [149]:

3 May 2016 joins a discussion in a thread I was involved in at Modern Hebrew, in combative opposition

10 June 2016 joins a discussion I was involved in on Zionism, in combative opposition

21 August 2016 reverts an edit of mine at Palestinians

28 August 2016 joins a discussion at Rachel's Tomb, in combative opposition, and later joins a similar discussion at Joseph's Tomb

16 October 2016 partial revert of my edits at L'Shana Haba'ah

30 October 2016 joins a discussion at Template:Graphical Overview of Jerusalem's Historical Periods, in combative opposition

19 November 2016 reverts my edit at Demographic history of Jerusalem

25 November 2016‎ partial revert of my edit at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

28 November 2016 reverts my edit at Ethnoreligious group

His intent is clear and it is making for a very difficult editing environment.

As an aside, and in the interest of transparency, please note that Drsmoo has opened four previous ANI claims against me: [150], [151], [152], [153]

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The above is complete and utter BS and the same percentages appear with others who frequently edit in the I/P field. It also includes places where I edited first, for example, my talk page. I have no special interest in Oncenawhile and regularly edit in the I/P field which involves disputes with multiple editors. In the last six months I've edited 63 articles and Oncenawhile has edited 157, there have been 14 overlaps, which is roughly the same ratio you'll find with anyone in the I/P field. However, essentially every time Oncenawhile is involved, he drags the discussion on into a long meaningless argument, usually filled with personal attacks (from him), endless "pinging" (from him) (a weird thing to do to someone you say is "hounding" you) and harassment (including on my talk page). This combined with the fact that I often make multiple grammar edits for every "contribution" due to not utilizing preview as often as I should leads to the BS above.

Meanwhile, Oncenawhile has been harassing me (and other editors), including on my talk page, incessantly. Including this, where when it was clear that he had no reliable sources to back up his/her edits, he started accusing me of "hounding".

Some recent examples:

• Tells me he will not assume good faith when editing

• Falsely accuses me of "plagiarizing a student website" even while my edit is fully sourced

• Posts on my talk page that my edit reminds him of "Milli Vanilli", whatever that means

• Says my policy based statements are "vacuous", and thus he will ignore them

• "you made a stupid revert about something totally irrelevant, and noone can be bothered to deal with it.”

• Calls me "pathetic"

• Accuses me of Islamophobia based on nothing

And some examples of his editing towards other editors

• "Telling NMMNG not to attack another editor is like telling a child they can't have cake. It only feeds his aggression. The best way to deal with editors like this is to ignore them."

• “I would note that the quality of your edits so far suggest you know very little about the city's history. You appear to be using this as a learning exercise, rather than a valid attempt to improve the encyclopaedia based on any pre-existing knowledge.”

• “I worry about people when they feel the need to project their own self-importance to unknown strangers. Numerous psychological studies have shown that such behaviour belies a deep lack of underlying self confidence. It probably goes without saying, but I am here for you if you ever need anyone to speak to.”

Feel free to look through my posting history or any of the examples he gave, I have never engaged in personal attacks and all my edits, including this most recent one, are policy based. Drsmoo (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Requesting NPA block of IP user

• 184.189.217.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• User talk:BatteryIncluded (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:184.189.217.210 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting a WP:NPA block for this IP user who's been on a series of rants today in which they've referred to me and other editors and our edits as "illogical nonsense", "people with poor reasoning skills", "cheap and lazy", "grossly incompetent", "completely incompetent", "involved users" with "political agendas", "certainly weren't competent", "utterly incompetent", and in summary "people like this should not be allowed anywhere near the moderation machinery of Wikipedia" and "do Wikipedia and its editors a favor and never ever involve yourself in a issue of sockpuppetry again, because you are no good at it." (all emphasis in original). None of these are particularly egregious on their own and I would applaud their use of a thesaurus, but it is a lengthy rant by a user who was warned recently about making personal attacks, and whose pattern of personal attacks was demonstrative in the sockpuppetry block they just came off (which was later shown to be erroneous and would have been lifted no doubt, had they not personally attacked the admin reviewing their unblock request). Considering their own political agenda and history of POV edits, it seems they don't have much interest in contributing constructively. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that BatteryIncluded and the anon are not the same person? The whole issue seems to revolve around that accusation, which the IP vehemently denies and which was not backed up by a CU (CU denied twice), though the IP was blocked for it. If they are not the same peson, calling someone incompetent isn't nice, but a personal perception based on facts and sheer exasperation. Failing to doubt ones infallibility usually leads to no good, I know from personal experience.

Also, please provide examples of POV edits from which you conclude WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Although I was attacked by this IP user, I agree with Kleuske here that a block is not necessary. This user was angry because of the sockpuppet accusation, I hope everything will be good when they calm down. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wrote above that their block was later shown to be erroneous, so yes, I've "considered it". There's a conversation on BatteryIncluded's talk page wherein a CheckUser confirmed that they are not related, in which I also explained why requests for CheckUser on an IP address are routinely declined. I'm not claiming infallibility but I made the only judgement I could make given the evidence that was available. When technical evidence that they are not the same user became available later (because a CheckUser elected to check, of his own accord) then it was shown that the block was wrong. BatteryIncluded's block was reset at that time and I'm not sure why the IP's wasn't lifted, but it seems that the reviewing administrator didn't consider their unblock request to be genuine.

Being frustrated about being on the wrong end of this error is entirely warranted: it's frustrating. And it's understandable from time to time a frustrated user blows off steam, and we usually ignore it. But this is not an outburst: it's a continuation of a pattern of abusive editing. You can see warnings on the IP's talk page for failing to assume good faith at Talk:Alicia Machado (presumably here) and for personal attacks apparently here. There are more personal attacks in edits here, here, and here, all of these occurring before there was a sockpuppet investigation. That pattern is part of a broader pattern of tendentious POV-pushing at Myron Ebell insisting that we must describe him as a "climate change skeptic" or "climate science denier" ([154], [155], [156]) against apparent consensus. Their comment that "Now that Trump has been elected, it doesn't much matter ... human civilization on this planet is soon over. I will still call out this sort of BS" doesn't sound a lot like an editor interested in a collaborative project based on consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This has to be one of the flimsier blocks for sockpuppetry I've seen. I'd be hard pressed to accept, based on the evidence at the SPI page, that the IP was BatteryIncluded. Having an extremem POV on climage change, regardless of whether one leans towards acceptance or denial, wouldn't be surprising and that the IP edited around the same time as BI certainly does raise eyebrows, but a comparison between the two editors' styles, at least in my mind, certainly did not say the IP is BI's sock. Blackmane (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, naturally. Certainly climate change is a topic on which many editors have strong opinions, myself included; two editors with a similar (even extreme) POV isn't unusual at all and in fact there are several other users arguing the same side of this debate. In addition to the narrative presented at SPI, what connected these two users in my mind was:

• their tendency to repeatedly refer to opposing viewpoints as "bullshit" or a "soapbox" and vowing not to spend any more time on them ([157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163])
• engaging in blatant ad hominems ([164] [165] [166] [167])
• using this debate to lament the recent American presidential election ([168] [169]) in a tone that suggests intent to right great wrongs
• gravedancing an enforcement sanction against Zigzig20s ([170] [171] [172])

As I said, there were (and are) several other users continuing this discussion at Talk:Myron Ebell, but only these two editors have participated in this debate in this same style, at reasonably nearly the same time, and with one continuing to do so while the other is blocked. That's a strong sockpuppetry case, in my opinion. Nevertheless, technical evidence obtained after the fact has shown that to be incorrect and I'm not arguing with that: the IP is not BatteryIncluded's sockpuppet, notwithstanding my prior conclusion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I too am scratching my head at the behavior of this IP editor. Clone-like in tone to BatteryIncluded and angry at everyone, the IP made a few edits like a tornado in a trailer park, including vexatious edits towards those who had tussled with BatteryIncluded, and soon got blocked. Then a week later the IP heads to the alleged puppetmaster's talk page to introduce himself and commiserate about how they are both victims of an abusive Wikipedia administration, stating here "BTW, English isn't BI's native language, where as it's my only language -- anyone competent can tell the difference between us." How the heck do you know that? And here "if I were BatteryIncluded, it's unlikely that I would be posting this comment." Huh? Why would angry IP give a hoot about BatteryIncluded or righting a wrong on his talk page? I've never seen such a sense of justice from an ephemeral IP editor. Most just unplug their modem overnight and start fresh with a new IP in the morning. I've spent my share of time in Ducktown, Tennessee, and the quack is unmistakable. But if the glove doesn't fit, the glove doesn't fit. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How the heck do you know that? -- By reading BatteryIncluded saying so; duh. Why would angry IP give a hoot about BatteryIncluded or righting a wrong on his talk page? -- Um, this really isn't hard to understand. I don't give a hoot about BI, but I do give a hoot about having been drawn into this, and about WP editors tossing around bogus charges based on flimsy evidence. I explained this in my "rants" at some length. And you completely missed the obvious point, which is that BI never would have posted a "series of rants" with an IP address on a page where he is being accused of using that IP address as a sockpuppet unless he wanted to be banned. My comments don't show giving a hoot about BI; quite the opposite. "I've never seen such a sense of justice from an ephemeral IP editor." -- Argumentum ad ignorantiam. And that's a ridiculous claim; ephemeral IP editors are just people ... there's no inverse correlation between using an IP address and having a sense of justice. The fact is that there are very few people with my sense of justice, so not having encountered one is irrelevant. And my sense of justice being strong and unique is another argument against my being BI, as he doesn't display it either. Only the most superficial sort of analysis -- seen both in your comment above and in the sockpuppetry "evidence" that you presented -- could make us out to be the same person. "the quack is unmistakable" -- you say, after having been proven mistaken. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, naturally. -- Eh? It was proven by a CheckUser that I am not a sockpuppet of BatteryIncluded and someone (you, perhaps?) thanked that CheckUser for setting them straight. It is amazing that you would continue to press this idea that we are sockpuppets after a CheckUser has shot down the claim and has severely criticized the original claim and the block based on it. You write "That's a strong sockpuppetry case, in my opinion" -- this is a serious logic failure when you have in hand hard evidence that we are not sockpuppets ... your "strong sockpuppetry case" is no such thing, it is merely a case of two different people having some things in common, which is vastly different from them being the same person. What we have here is a strong case that you don't understand what makes for a case for sockpuppetry -- that's a demonstrated fact, not a "personal attack". And that was the point of my "rant", which remains entirely valid by your own words and actions. Both you and Magnolia677, who presented the entirely bogus "evidence" of sockpuppetry, are way too personally involved. You are now advising blocking me based on political views that I have expressed. That is not the Wikipedia way. Follow the lead of sensible, disinterested people like Kleuske and Vanjagenije. Back away and drop this. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@184.189.217.210: I'm requesting that if you have something else to post, create a new post below your previous one. Going back and changing your already posted statements makes it hard for others to follow, as I have been trying the last few minutes. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 13:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments: . I will again note that, while English is not BatteryIncluded's first language, it is my only language and I am very fluent in it ... I don't need a thesaurus to write well. Ivanvector's "strong sockpuppetry case" totally ignores the significant stylistic differences between two users, while making far too much of irrelevant facts like both of us writing on the Myron Ebell talk page around the same time -- no surprise because it was within days of the U.S. election and Donald Trump's announcement that Ebell was in charge of the EPA transition team. I made these points in my "rant" but he has completely failed here to consider or present the argument made in my "rant". And Magnolia677, who presented the entirely bogus "evidence" of sockpuppetry while he himself was an active editor on the Myron Ebell page. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who considers this block request should read carefully the reasoning and points I presented in my "rants". while considering that it is now well known and has been acknowledged even by Ivanvector that I am not a sockpuppet of BatteryIncluded; that the charge was bogus, based on 'evidence" that did not remotely support it, and yet resulted in a six month ban for BatteryIncluded. As the CheckUser wrote, BatteryIncluded would have had to "acknowledge" the nonexistent sockpuppetry in order to have the ban lifted. Think for yourselves how you would characterize the people who placed that ban. Perhaps my "rant" wasn't so far off. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

whose pattern of personal attacks was demonstrative in the sockpuppetry block they just came off -- the block had nothing to do with "personal attacks", it was a block for evading a block ... based on a completely bogus charge, made by you. would have been lifted no doubt -- the block was "lifted" by expiring. had they not personally attacked the admin reviewing their unblock request -- this is a false charge, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the reviewing admin would have lifted the ban. The reviewing admin gave their reasons for not unblocking, and being personally attacked was not among them -- of course, because I had never addressed or even heard of them before their rejection of the unblock request. The claim that "no doubt" they would have lifted the ban is absurd, illogical, and has no basis in fact, like so many of your claims. And you can call that a "personal attack", but that too has no basis in logic or fact. OTOH, you have used my expressed political views as a basis for your argument for this ban, and that is a personal attack. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, the claim that I have made "POV edits" is nonsense ... in an attempt to improve the lede of the Myron Ebell article I changed text saying that he is a "climate change analyst" to saying that he is a climate change skeptic ... the latter is well supported by the cited sources, whereas the former is not. An edit isn't "POV" just because you have some other POV. The current lede, which does not contain anything I wrote, notes that he has been described as been described as a climate change skeptic, a climate contrarian, and a climate change denier. If you want to ban me for supposedly having a "political agenda", you had better ban everyone involved in writing that lede, and ban all those reliable sources as well. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think that most users will be able to see the multiple places (including in my original post and on BatteryIncluded's talk page) where I've acknowledged that this IP user is not BatteryIncluded's sockpuppet. I've said so explicitly twice (now thrice) just in this thread. Sometimes what looks and sounds like a duck turns out to be just some guy with a duck call and a feather hat. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  Most users can see that I'm not a duck (BI-like) at all, that your "strong evidence" for that was nothing of the sort, and that your block request is baseless and ill-advised. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Creation of multiple unsourced articles

Bruce hughes (talk · contribs) has a history of creating unacceptable articles, and in the last week has settled into a niche, starting multiple unsourced articles listing BeeGees concert tours from the 1970s. I find it difficult to dig up sources that confirm dates and places, and wonder if these are even notable. One could template the heck out of the articles and pile warnings on the account, and the situation would be static and likely sit indefinitely. Perhaps each article will need to go through AfD, but some input regarding the editor will be appreciated, too. This isn't a terribly constructive account, and seems to be looking for something to add, period. No edit summaries or interest in explaining rationale. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I suspect we have block evasion. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PogiJmon/Archive for accounts with a similar interest in BeeGees arcana. Maybe Bbb23 can help, since you weighed in there. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: - I looked over some of the contributions from the listed users and I don't think it's a sockpuppet. The Bruce user in question can barely format a bulleted list. They have also reverted a minor formatting change on one of the BeeGees tour pages -- so I feel it's clear they have no idea about formatting or the MOS. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• I PRODded a couple of them. In their current state they fail NTOUR spectacularly. I'm also worried about articles like The Bee Gees' concerts in 1967 and 1968. NTOUR is violated all over the wiki these days, with every popstar (not just K-pop) getting a list of tours, tour articles, etc., besides a separate discography, list of awards, and so on. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. I see you also nominated one of his articles at AfD. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Compromised account?

I've looked through Pm master's edits in the past. This leads me to believe the account is compromised. To wit:

• From 2007 - 2013 PM master made several thousand edits, all in the area of project management and related business organisational topics. Much of this was fighting spam links in business articles. They evidenced no interest in historical, Iranian, or Islamic topics.
• Yet the account became active again yesterday (after a 2 year hiatus), immediately undertook disputes in an entirely novel field, and claimed knowledge of editors and edits with which they have no prior interaction.
• The style of talk page postings in the earlier period and the recent days is entirely different.

It is clear that the person currently using the Pm master account is an experienced Wikipedian; but I do not believe it is the same person as used it until 2013.

Obviously the logs from 2013 are long gone, so a checkuser wouldn't be able to confirm this. I don't know what steps we can take. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that this warrants investigation. A checkuser may not yield any definitive results because, as you say, the logs from 2013 would have long since expired. However, it may be possible to discern the original Pm master's probable timezone by examining the time stamps on his pre-2013 edits. It would by no means prove anything on its own, but if there's been a radical enough change between then and now, it could go a long way in affirming the possibility of a compromised account. That's assuming there isn't any other more explicit indication of it in his contributions.

In any event, the communication style and primary areas of interest are divergent enough, coupled with the sudden return to active editing following a three-year hiatus, that a compromised account seems likely. I would not be opposed to an indefinite block of Pm master until we get to the bottom of this. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• I hesitate only because I've never dealt with a compromised account before. Maybe Stephen can have a go... Drmies (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks Drmies, I'm not an expert by any stretch - I only catch the obvious cases like Wales vandalizing the main page. However, a calm experienced editor with an interest in software development project management suddenly diving into middle-eastern matters and accusing an respected admin of sockpuppetry in his second edit in two years is indeed compromised. I've extended your block indefinitely until identity can be reestablished. Stephen 23:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oh that Jimbo Wales thing is TOTALLY NOT WHY I PINGED YOU STEPHAN but I appreciate the extra set of eyes--I think that makes five pairs by now. Also, I don't know if FPaS is "respected", though I appreciate their service, but you know, they've been here forever and that counts for something. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Uncivil discourse by User:Elvey

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

---

When asked for sources here they respond Find someone else to harass, please. I've written a comment on the talk page. Which I don't need to quote sources to do. And you have no business demanding. Please go away. (Ditto? Willful blindness†)

When I commented "What you added does not belong in the section on "causes" and the HuffPo is not a very good source." the responded "You are being rude. "[173]

Claiming harassment were their is none IMO is not appropriate. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have asked James to be civil - to answer several reasonable questions, but he thrice avoids answering them - three bright line violations of the WP:CIVIL policy. Instead he mines my edits for dirt, misquotes me, and brings it here to ANI. And yet I'm the one with the battleground mentality? Why the incivility, folks?

The fact is, I had already provided a source which even editor who made the comment I was responding to (Ronz) later said is high quality. From http://www.berkeleywellness.com/about-us:

Berkeley Wellness, in collaboration with the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, is the leading online resource for evidence-based wellness information.

We rely on the expertise of top researchers at the University of California, as well as other physicians and scientists from around the world, to translate leading-edge research into practical advice for daily living.

The editors and editorial board of both the Wellness Letter and Berkeley Wellness review the latest research to clarify the often conflicting and superficial health information presented by the popular media. We don't promote faddish diets or other anecdote-based regimens. Nor do we repeat conventional medical advice from mainstream health organizations or pharmaceutical companies.

Again, I had already provided a source. I had started a section on a talk page specifically to engage collaboratively with other editors - to discuss a section that the subsequent discussion shows there is consensus for. I started a subsection, Talk:Dean_Ornish#What_to_call_it. Ronz often asks for sources. That's fine, if terse, when content is proposed and none has been offered or is evident as in that case. But that was not the case here. While Ronz should have noticed the source, I think I did overreact, and apologize. Given tenseness due to James' recent incivility, the election, etc, I ask for compassion and fairness. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say, mildly uncivil, then I scrolled up and saw this reply to Alexbrn's quite reasonable request: "You ignored my question‡, again. That is not being wp:civil. Well, at least we see in your comments consistent... willful ignorance, chronic incivility, and trolling. Obviously you're not here to build an encylopedia. I will thus ignore you. Go away, please. --Elvey(t•c) 08:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)". Apart from the blatant unjustified personal attacks, they did not seem to actually understand what Alexbrn asked for, despite a further explanation. Looks like a competance issue coupled with a basically uncivil approach to other people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, I'd already provided sources, but Alexbrn is doing the same thing as Ronz: acting as if I haven't, and like James, acting as if WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to them. They violate WP:CIVIL, which states in part, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions." I wonder how much, uh, off-wiki communication there is among the crowd of editors who always seem to show up with the same unverifiable personal attacks/to defend each other. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because you do not like the answers you get is not a violation of WP:CIVIL which from going back over your contribution history over the years appears to be your 'go to' method of disregarding editors you are in conflict with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Please try not to beat up your spouse - Unless they are willing to commit to engaging in a civil manner, their editing privilidges may need to be removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd already further explained and removed the comment and resolved the dispute before I ever even saw a notification of this thread. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Only in death, could you please adjust the quotation? Your message and the quote don't match up. Thanks. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Que? They do for me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Lo siento. It didn't look like it to me. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah I think I know what you mean, no I wasnt linking to the specific section/comment position on the page, just the diff (as the comment can be seen at the top on the right). Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Of note: Elvey was community banned for 3 months beginning in February of this year for "promoting a battleground mentality" and for being "disruptive and needlessly aggressive". See discussion. Also note that Elvey has been blocked as far back as 2007 for creating a hostile editing environment, and blocked three other times for disruptive editing/personal attacks. See block log. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, user also apparently has an unhelpful penchant for leaving lengthy custom warning templates: [174], [175]. TimothyJosephWood 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You violated BLP, so I warned you. I take copyright violations seriously. Snooganssnoogans repeatedly failed to, and had violated copyright. So a warning was warranted. You disagree. Why exactly? --Elvey^(t•c) 00:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No one violated BLP. This was well resolved on the article talk, and amounted to a slight change of wording to be more in line with the source. The COPYVIO issue, while legitimate, was also well resolved on talk, and done so nearly a week prior to your leaving literally a page long warning for Snoogans. Neither was remotely necessary. TimothyJosephWood 01:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• There has also been a lot of recent stuff at WP:AE. I can confirm from my own personal experiences all of the concerns being expressed here: example. I think we may be at the point where a site-ban may be necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would urge administrators to enforce the section of WP:CIVIL which states, "Editors are expected ... to be responsive to good-faith questions," or remove it (or explain if I'm misunderstanding it). Either I'm mistaken or several of the diffs above show (me pointing out cases of) it being violated, frequently. It's not an essay or guideline. It's a core policy and the violations are blatant. Tryptofish has been trying to get me site-banned for ages, has their own problems, and is very closely associated with a site-banned sockpuppeteer who receives special treatment since retiring and a user who (again, violating WP:CIVIL) refused to answer when I asked him, "...Do you have any alternative accounts?" --Elvey^(t•c) 00:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I smell bad, too.

Admins looking here should know that we are really dealing with much more than what Doc James called "uncivil discourse", although there is certainly plenty of that, too. There is a profound competence issue here (or could it somehow be very intense trolling?). What you see at the link I gave, to my talk page archive, as well as here in this ANI discussion, is Elvey consistently failing to have the slightest clue about why other editors have concerns about his editing, and then turning around and playing the victim, while accusing the other editors of pretty much what they said about him. If one looks at the details, Elvey's accusations always end up being meritless, to the point of being nonsensical. It's getting to be a time drain for the rest of us, and as I said above, we have gotten into site-ban territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Since Elvey just referred to me there, I'll make a statement. First, the subject matter here is content about industry corruption of medicine, which is a topic where Elvey kind of goes off the rails here in WP, and is directly related to their community-imposed extended block. The extended block was part of what triggered a reversal of Elvey's controversial/POINTy close on an RfC to change MEDRS.

Elvey's initial edit that this whole thing developed over, was on Oct 2, here, made to the Causes section of the Obesity article (a section for biomedical information). Their edit was about about the sugar industry paying for science that hid the cardiovascular damage that sugar does, and trying to turn attention away from contribution of sugar and diet to obesity through an academic organization called GEBN that solely emphasizes people exercising more.

On Oct 2, Doc James used the MEDRS-source from Elvey's edit elsewhere in the article in this dif, and after watching Elvey batter the talk page, on Oct 13 I implemented content about industry corruption with regard to obesity research based on Elvey's edit but with other refs in this dif in the "Society and culture" section, and added content to coronary heart disease article based on refs Elvey had brought in this dif.

I'll ask anybody to review what unfolded on the Talk page starting Oct 2 in this section: Talk:Obesity#More_diet_than_exercise.3F, with Elvey's battery/BLUDGEONing, with special mind to the following diffs: diff (with the one-word edit summary "adjusted" is inappropriate dismissive spraying of liquid. Would you be willing to give a shot at being more collaborative, Doc ?), diff (You say the refs are poor. Have you read them? Bloomberg? PBS? What are you on? AGAIN: I request that you stop removing content...), diff, and dif, with this weirdly repeated question throughout: The issue is clearly bigger than GEBN, as the disputed content shows-it's just the tip of the iceberg. Agreed?

Just today Elvey posted this proposal on Talk saying there was nothing about sugary drinks in the article, to which I responded here, providing the quote of the existing content covering that quite clearly.

There is a WP:CIR, bludgeoning thing going on here. Off the rails again with regard to industry corruption of medicine. Jytdog (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why you kept refusing to answer the question. You were setting a trap. Your ability to game the system is impressive. Well played, sir, well played. I mean getting that tban imposed and then claiming you've connected adding information about health effects of sugar to the article on Obesity and a tban on COI - really, masterful gamesmanship. You win. I retire. --Elvey^(t•c) 11:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

At the ANI that led to their TBAN and the ANI that led to the community imposed extended block, Elvey responded by vanishing for a while - described here at the last ANI. Will probably be true to form again this time. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Sources/Forum shopping

All three sources appear to be WP:MEDRS violations. There are reviews on the causes. QuackGuru (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru:The sources (PBS and Bloomberg News) are only backing statements about patients' beliefs, so they can't be violating MEDRS. Also, you're forum shopping: You are rehashing a discussion on the talk page, where I said:

content that complies with WP:MEDINDY/BIOMEDICAL, which, I remind you, states :"What is not biomedical information?": "Statements about patients' beliefs regarding a disease or treatment" "why people choose or reject a particular treatment" "information about disease awareness campaigns", and is very reliably sourced. So follow up on the article talk page, not here, please! --Elvey^(t•c) 01:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

What you added appears to be about medical content not patients' beliefs. The causes section is for medical content, anyhow. I'm note sure what you mean by "forum shopping". Since you replied here then I will reply here to keep the discussion together. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Elvey, what is this about? QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

I would like to propose a WP:1RR for a year and a ban on comments on other editors motives broadly construed for User:Elvey. Others thoughts? User Elvey is also to be restricted to one account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Doc, you are far too generous. We have an editor who has created numerous socks specifically to disrupt this Encyclopedia, been tbanned from COI and SPI, including numerous violations of those bans, and has been block numerous times for creating a contentious environment, including a recent 3 month break, for us, from their behavior. I think, at this point, enough is enough. We need to have a full on site ban. How much should the community have to endure out of this person?--Adam in MO Talk 03:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with AdaminMO. I'm tired of seeing his name at ANI and the complete lack of rehabilitation despite all of the previous discussions and sanctions. I think it's time for a site-ban, or at least an indef block. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to more restrictive measures if people feel this would not be enough. They have stated here that they are retired [176].Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

As is noted up above, Elvey's MO when faced with a sanction or Tban is to vanish for a while, so this may be more of the same (plus he hasn't posted any retired template on his account), so better to make it official I think. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

As per other editors, I believe the claim of retirement is meaningless, and I also believe that we have reached the point where enough is enough. I'm therefore making the following proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I just had a look through some of the diffs as someone not in any way involved in this dispute. Anyway the claim seems to be that he is being paid to edit from the University of California, San Francisco, a center of medical health care research. How is that at all credible? Surely universities don't pay their researchers to edit wikipedia. I don't see how it is a COI at all. It is also just an allegation. Nobody provided any concrete evidence at all that he is paid to edit wikipedia.

It seems to me well plausible that he is what he says he is, a retirement age medical chemist still working at his subject. There are many such. Many academics continue to work at their subject until they die well beyond retirement age. So the allegation of a COI seems far fetched to me, and I noticed that editors were divided in their opinion of whether it was a topic ban violation.

I can't see any discussion of him using socks, may have missed it but to edit from a university ip address doesn't make you a sock. And he has been a long term editor for over a decade.

The original complaint here was about uncivil discourse, and it doesn't seem right to me to relitigate past actions that have already been closed on the basis of uncivil discourse. The actual material mentioned here doesn't merit any kind of a ban I think, just a warning.

The discourse mentioned anyway in the statement of this case doesn't even seem particularly uncivil as things go here in wikipedia or indeed elsewhere too [177]. After all when someone spends a lot of time on wikipedia, it is natural for tempers to fray a bit at times. The only difference is that here every single word you say gets recorded for all time for posterity. I think we all need to develop a sense of perspective here and bit of tolerance not to jump on top of people whenever they show the slightest signs of irritation. Even if irritated frequently - it was only talk page activity and he got irritated because another editor asked him to provide a cite for something he said on a talk page. He is quite right that we don't have to provide cites for things we say on talk pages, only when added to the article. The way I read that encounter is that he knew that what he said was true, but to find the cites would involve him doing some minutes or hours of research to prove it to the other editor which he would of course do before adding to an article, but didn't feel he was required to do so on a talk page. It is understandable irritation in such a situation. I've seen far worse both on wikipedia and off wikipedia. I think that the most that's needed is a caution about uncivil behaviour. A site ban is way over excessive for uncivil behaviour in the form of momentary irritation during talk page discussions. If there is some other matter I think it needs to be brought up separately.

My main objection is that this seems to be an attempt to re-open discussions and decisions that have already been closed, and enforce stronger sanctions than were previously imposed, with nothing new added to them, all on the basis of a moment of temper on a talk page about an unrelated matter. Robert Walker (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyway the claim seems to be that he is being paid to edit from the University of California, San Francisco,...

Where would that be? On the Dean Ornish talk page, there's no mention I see of any such COI claim, nor even of UCSF itself -- unless you're confusing UCSF with UC Berkeley, which is an entirely separate institution with entirely different mission. And no mention of COI there, either.

So the allegation of a COI seems far fetched to me...

Unless there's an actual allegation of COI, this is, at best, irrelevant.

I can't see any discussion of him using socks...

Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Elvey and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Elvey/Archive. It took me twenty seconds, but then, I'm a slow typist.

My main objection is that this seems to be an attempt to re-open discussions and decisions that have already been closed..

You appear to have confused Wikipedia and its decisions with the workings of a court of law. "Double jeopardy" is not a rule here; "past behavior being repeated", however, is a standard guideline.

A little familiarization with things would be a good start before commenting. --Calton | Talk 06:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks, those are only suspected sock puppets though. It is easy to get suspected sock puppets with rotating ip addresses. Yes past behaviour repeated - but he is not repeating past behaviour, unless you are saying it is a site ban offence to get irritated on a talk page. Sorry I have just looked again at the archives, I misread what they said about COI. Pages of very complex discussion which I don't have the time to read through. It seems that the topic ban was to prevent him from engaging in COI claims against other editors rather than a COI allegation against himself. I got it back to front. What I thought was a COI allegation against him was rather a COI allegation by him against another editor [178]. But whatever the merits or otherwise, a moment of irritation or several moments of irritation on a talk page is not a reason to re-open investigation of COI or sock puppets surely or to propose a site ban. For that reason I have registered a strong oppose since that seems to be the sole reason given for re-opening the case and proposing a site ban. Robert Walker (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks, those are only suspected sock puppets though...

From "Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Elvey: "This category lists confirmed sock puppets of: Elvey"

and, from "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Elvey/Archive:

...so I stopped reading the rest of your contrarianism. If someone can't be bothered to read a very short text or if obviously misrepresent what's there, there's really no point. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well there is something strange going on there. How are these edits sock puppetry? [179] and [180] - the only two edits of BlackAsSoot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to take one example from that list. And even "confirmed sock puppets" are not necessarily really sock puppets. With rotating ip addresses and many people who share addresses, then sock puppet investigation is prone to errors. Robert Walker (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Unless a user is taking extraordinary lengths to conceal their tracks, CheckUsers are able to link accounts to one another. CheckUser is not just a user privilege, it's also a tool that grants CheckUser admins the technical ability to look beyond just the behavioural, but also the underlying IP of the accounts in question. Blackmane (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your attempts to rewrite reality notwithstanding, your claims about there being "only suspected sock puppets" is flatly, objectively false. Which speaks to either extraordinary carelessness regarding basic facts or an attempt to mislead, either of which gives me a reason to question your judgement here. I could throw in your attempt (back when you said you saw no mention of sockpuppetry) at a fact-free rationalization of how the sockpuppetry you didn't see could be excused. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed site ban

• I propose that Elvey be indefinitely site-banned by the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support This is a long time coming. --Adam in MO Talk 03:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support though sadly, his disruption extends to Meta and won't be affected by a site ban here. This user is unable to collaborate. --Rschen7754 03:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support per the above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I feel that Elvey has been given more than enough rope over a long period of time. Regardless of whether his input or substantive opinions have or had any merit, his inability to collaborate or be civil or act civilly is too much of a continued liability, and per WP:CIR he must be shown the door. Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This time around all he has been accused of is of getting irritated with another user in a talk page discussion. We need a sense of perspective here. He has not done anything that would lead to reopening of sock investigation (only suspected socks) or investigation of his tendency to engage in COI allegations against other editors. Getting irritated is not a site ban offence. I am not sure it even needs a caution, but if it does, that is all that is needed in my view (I say a bit more about this above). Robert Walker (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Robert Walker, I've read your comments above, and I'd like to reply. I think that it's a good thing to make sure that we are not acting rashly, so thank you for that. However, I believe that you misunderstand the reasons behind this proposal. It's not about double-jeopardy, nor is it primarily about rehashing anything about socking or COI, or about simple annoyance. It's about a long history of refusing to work with consensus in any way that even approaches good faith or at least comprehension, and of creating huge time drains for the rest of the community. (By the way, I see from your talk page that you have had a history with some of the editors here, so you did not really come here as a totally uninvolved editor, as you said above.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Okay - if that is the reason I think that needs to be made clear. I think myself that the way ANI is often run at present is very confusing. People come here posting a complaint about one thing, and it then evolves to a completely different issue and along the way other allegations are made which are not countered. Then you get votes in the middle of that. I think it is quite possible that some of those who voted to support the site ban are under the impression that the ban was proposed to deal with issues of sock puppetry and COI rather than because of time drains. I don't think myself that time drains are sufficient reason for a site ban. After all time drains like that can as often be due to the accusing editors as the ones brought here. In particular I think to bring an editor here for being momentarily angry on a talk page is a time drain, we should have a sense of perspective and not bring every moment of anger to ANI. Yes you are right, I have now discovered that I had a previous interaction with one of the editors who previously also interacted with @Elvey: but they are not involved in the present discussion as yet, and they are not the reason I commented here. It was not this topic or in any way connected with it. I found this discussion by reading the ANI board. I think ANI can benefit from more comments from uninvolved editors and so I picked a couple of cases for today where I have no connection with the editor or any of the editors bringing the case and commented on them. I plan to do this occasionally as a way to help have more uninvolved editors bring their eyes to the disputes and would encourage others to do the same - I think that may help a lot. Robert Walker (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with "time drains". How anyone could characterize it as that is genuinely beyond me. Softlavender (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender I assume it's based on - in part - the response from the actual proposer; and of creating huge time drains Mr rnddude (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, I was speaking in terms of the same thing as when you said earlier: "I'm tired of seeing his name at ANI and the complete lack of rehabilitation despite all of the previous discussions and sanctions." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well the fact that that's the sole way that Robert Walker is characterizing it proves that he knows nothing about the situation [181] and should bow out of the discussion. Cluttering up ANI with wall-of-text uninformed opinions is a huge waste of everyone's time -- a time drain if there ever was one. Softlavender (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, got it, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Part of my justification for supporting is I do not see User:Elvey here reassuring us that his past behavior will stop. Or even acknowledging the concerns people are raising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, @Mr rnddude: thanks, I was just taking up @Tryptofish: there when they said: "It's not about double-jeopardy, nor is it primarily about rehashing anything about socking or COI, or about simple annoyance. It's about a long history of refusing to work with consensus in any way that even approaches good faith or at least comprehension, and of creating huge time drains for the rest of the community." - I was saying if that is what it is about, then strike COI and socking from the list of accusations before voting, as there has been nothing new since the last investigation. I think this should be started anew as a new ANI case if you think there is something to address. As it is now then people are voting here based on COI and sock allegations which are past closed cases here, and doing that on the basis of a user who got irritated on a talk page as the only new evidence brought to the case as a reason for a full site ban. This is not right. And as I said, time drains go both ways. The very act of bringing this user back to ANI just because they showed moments of irritation on a talk page is a time drain. If time drains should be disciplined then you need to look at the editors who bring trivial cases to ANI and discipline those if anything. Only after this habit of bringing trivial cases here then adding a string of allegations is dealt with, then we can see which editors are left that are brought here frequently with non trivial cases. You are trying to convince me to change my strong oppose vote, but sorry no you haven't convinced me at all. It remains as "strong oppose" Robert Walker (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: Unbolded double !vote. Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. As others have mentioned, Elvey has already been given tons of rope, but their behavior has not improved. The history of ANI's for Elvey detailed above show a pretty robust timesink at articles and at ANI with continued battleground behavior, WP:POINTY editing, edit warring, hounding, etc. It's fair to say we're long past the end of the rope here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I have no tolerance for sockpuppetry, certainly not on the part of a long-time editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: do look at the sockpuppet claims - there is something very strange about them. Several of them have only two edits and hard to see how they can really be sock puppets. For instance these: [182] and [183] - are the only two edits of BlackAsSoot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). How is that sock puppetry? Also note that they are old stale claims from cases long closed if I understand right. Those are edits one from 2013 and one from 2012. The only new evidence here is of moments of anger on a talk page, nothing to do with sock puppetry. Indeed I don't understand why it was reason to bring the user to ANI at all. Robert Walker (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply - I fail to see what is strange about the sockpuppet evidence. I do see that the sockpuppetry occurred in 2013, but I also see that the Checkuser results were in 2013 with fresh data. It is true that I don't see a recent case of sockpuppetry, but I do see a continuing case of disruptive editing. I have filed sockpuppet investigations on the basis of only a very small number of edits. Sockpuppetry is not permitted, and is evidence of contempt for the rules of Wikipedia. Disruptive editing in 2016 is one thing. Sockpuppetry in 213 is another thing. The combination is the combination. So, no, I don't see anything strange about the sockpuppet evidence, only something improper, the sockpuppetry and the disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert Walker, evidently you do not know how WP:CHECKUSER works; these are all confirmed and definite sockpuppets -- there is no guesswork about it. As I mentioned above, your uninformed opinions cluttering up this ANI are not helpful, and are a waste of time bordering on disruptive editing. Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: The checkuser tool alone cannot identify sockpuppetry; the tool can't differentiate between sockpuppetry and legit use of alternate accounts. Do you acknowledge that? I think that what @Robert McClenon: means. It's the only reasonable explanation. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh good grief, Elvey, this sort of dissimulation is what is getting you this site ban. Of course they were all CU-confirmed sockpuppets, not legitimate alternate accounts. Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Elvey doesn't even seem to know who is on which side. I was arguing in favor of a site ban. If he doesn't know the difference between me and Robert Walker, he doesn't know much. It is true that Checkuser as such doesn't distinguish between sockpuppets and legitimate alternate accounts, but legitimate alternate accounts must be declared. I have confidence that if the SPI admins blocked Elvey's socks, they knew that they weren't declared alternate accounts. I have no patience with sockpuppetry. I understand that Robert Walker may believe in patience with timesinks. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Regretful support, which I may likely change to an oppose if the user could come back and explain what the problem is and how they will avoid it in the future. Unfortunately that seems unlikely. TimothyJosephWood 03:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Based on what I see this user either just doesn't get it, or gets it but isn't doing anything to fix the problems. I don't know if the community would be open to parole or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Indefinite ban is called for due to continued battleground behavior, WP:POINTY conduct, edit warring, hounding of editors, etc. Time to show this user the door. Neutrality^talk 02:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I think this is overdue. Elvey has been persistently disruptive and the length of time this has been ongoing indicates that behavior which is inconsistent with a collaborative editing environment is unlikely to change. Deli nk (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This editor's persistent battleground behavior and inability to work with others far outweighs any positive contributions he has made to this project. He's been given many chances to reform. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: I removed a ridiculous "in-use" notice template added in this location by Elvey on 00:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC) [184]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've moved a request by Elvey from a new section into a subsection of the main thread, to keep it all together. Blackmane (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• I see the response below, six months is plenty of time to do some reflecting as I don't think much of anything is going to move the consensus needle here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The User:Elvey has a long history of disruption, ad hominem usage and battleground behaviour. She was instrumental in the downright vandalism of two articles last year (Carlos Castaneda & Richard de Mille) and had both pages indefinitely restricted to IP and some other registered editors, leaving her personal opinions to hold sway in said articles. Surely enough is enough - it's surprising that she has lasted so long. 92.20.180.249 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

— 92.20.180.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Request

I've been asked not to retire. I request to be allowed a little peace to calm down and compose a response to the ANI entry above about me over the next day or so. I asked for some time to edit in peace but my request was promptly removed and not respected. Admin responses only, SVP.--Elvey^(t•c) 02:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Who has asked you not to retire? There is no such request on either your talk page or this lengthy thread. Softlavender (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm interested in reading what Elvey has to say. I don't know that it will make a difference, at this point. If Elvey wants to do a post-mortem on their career, I'd would like to read that. --Adam in MO Talk 04:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe one of his sockpuppets sent him an email. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Although I'm no fan of sanctioning anyone without giving them an adequate opportunity to state their case, I think that we are in enough-is-enough territory. There is an obvious community consensus in favor of a site ban. Retirement means nothing, because editors un-retire all the time. And this ANI thread has been open a long time, plenty long enough for Elvey to "calm down and compose a response". And indeed there have already been plenty of his responses above. Instead of dragging this process out even longer, I would much prefer to get the inevitable over with. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Accidentally edited a page on id.wikipedia.org without logging from my account

I am an Autopatrolled and New Page Reviewer on English Wikipedia, I have accidentally edited a page on id.wikipedia.org (https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/TelkomTelstra) without logging from my account. Is there any way to avoid such incidents or whitelist my IP address or what is the best practice for it? Kavdiamanju (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean you don't want to edit as an IP user? If yes, then I don't really think there is any way for it, other than routinely checking you are logged in at the top-right corner. Normally when you edit as an IP user it should show something like "You are not logged in. Your IP will be publicly visible..." at the top so then you know that you are editing without logging in. NgYShung ^huh? 09:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a global solution unless you can implement a global stylesheet (which some browsers will allow you to do), but for easy recognition of when you're logged in (or not), add #wpSave{background-color:#00f} to Special:MyPage/common.css. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're using your own laptop/computer or mobile to edit, you can enable the "Keep me logged in (365 days)" when logging in. You should that if you sign out, say, on a laptop and also using your mobile, you be logged off in mobile. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, Kavdiamanju, this question may perhaps be more appropriate for ID-wiki, since the interfaces could possibly be different. If you'd like to request WP:REVDEL so that your IP address in that edit would be invisible to others, please contact an administrator on that wiki (here: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pengurus) rather than English wiki. An admin there can probably also more accurately answer your question about staying logged in and making sure you don't accidentally edit logged out. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Request rangeblock of 185.69.144.0/25

I've noticed quite a bit of vandalism/personal attacks from this IP range (at least I think 185.69.144.0/25 is the right range) recently, so much so that I think a temporary block is warranted. Some examples: [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190]. If a block is not possible, then could an admin please keep an eye on the range for the time being? Sro23 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked most of that range for 72 hours. Although I realize this is a mobile phone ISP and there is going to be some collateral damage, I think the nature of the personal attacks and the persistence of them, plus the additional disruption and edit warring, warrants the soft block. Not a long term solution, but hopefully it will help for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's your sad friend Cebr1979 getting all worked up again. Maybe your user and talk page needs ECP or semi prot. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Really? Is that them? I thought Cebr1979 was a human being. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• They've moved on to a new range (85.255.232.0/21). Diffs: [191][192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199]. Would another rangeblock be possible? Sro23 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Sro23: I've conferred with a CheckUser, and unfortunately, there's too much collateral here to range block. I'll bop individual IPs as they pop up. Feel free to either report to WP:AIV or ping me as needed for this guy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and BLP accusations with United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016

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

---

• United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has had several persistent issues over the summer and continuing into this fall. On July 15th, 2016 an IP user appeared who added information about Kurt Evans to the article. ALPolitico, a highly experienced editor with political posts, cleaned up the content and made it conform more to the general style of these political encyclopedia entries. There was a lot of reverting back and forth between the various IP addresses (who identified themselves later as Kurt Evans) and ALPolitico from July 28th to August 5th. ALPolitico made another larger modification on August 11th, removing unnecessary information and adding information about Kurt Evans being a perennial candidate. The IP user reverted ALPoliticos edits stating he removed the information for an "Inadequate reason". The prior edit summary was "Cleanup; what he teaches doesn't matter; with that many previous bids, he is a perennial candidate.", which seems like an adequate reason for the changed information to me.

In Mid-August 2016 this article came to my attention during routine vandalism monitoring. I saw the large back and forth reverts going on and added the page to my watchlist. On that same day, Ymblanter semi-protected the page temporarily, which stopped the disruptive activity from the IP user directly editing the article. The IP user requested assistance at the talk page, which I answered and resolved at that time. Another request for assistance was made and an exchange continued between an outside editor and then ALPolitico, which was an unproductive exchange of accusations. A third request and a fourth request were posted. I responded to the fourth request, referring the IP to WP:OTRS at this point for a fresh take from a volunteer there to assist.

Temporary Semi-Protection was added by Ymblanter again on September 25th; CambridgeBayWeather on October 18th and temporary full protection was added as of November 22nd due to the disruptive editing after I requested indefinite semi protection. It is clear that the IP user just doesn't like what the article says about him, even though ALPolitico sourced the information that was added and maintained the general style used in these types of articles. Semi-protection has not worked because the IP comes back after it expires just to restart the dispute. I strongly believe the article should be indefinitely semi-protected and the talk page should be temporarily semi-protected for a long period of time as this activity is purely disruptive at this point.

The final talk page post before this AN/I by the IP was this. The user disagrees with the consensus formed by ALPolitico and myself about the content of the article and simply wants to keep claiming we are documenting his bid unfairly. After reviewing the sources and the edits again, I do not feel we have misweighed or misrepresented the subject in question. As the user is an IP user with changing IPs, I will leave notice of this discussion on the talk page and last used IP address. Thanks. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This is 2002 U.S. Senate candidate Kurt Evans. In South Dakota a candidate for statewide office "qualifies" by submitting a required number of petition signatures to the secretary of state's office. To note that someone didn't "qualify" means that he or she declared as a candidate but didn't submit the required signatures. This carries the strongly negative connotation of someone who neglected to count the cost of a campaign and raised expectations he or she couldn't meet. In nearly 30 years of political activism, I don't remember hearing any other usage of the word "qualify" in this context.

That's nearly the opposite of what happened in the case at hand. I very deliberately refrained from declaring as a candidate because I understood that I couldn't be legally recognized as such unless federal district judge Karen Schreier approved the state party's motion to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy. Schreier explicitly rejected two such motions and thereby explicitly prevented anyone from becoming a Constitution Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. Judge Schreier's final August 31 ruling is explained in considerable detail in one of the sources that "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" have repeatedly removed for no stated reason.

I never declared as a Constitution Party candidate for this office, and I was never legally recognized as such. To say that I didn't "qualify" falsely suggests that it was possible for me to do so. In reality the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when Judge Schreier rejected the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy, as sourced in the Dakota Free Press articles from August 18 and September 8. "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" have both refused to explain why they're so determined to conceal this information from Wikipedia's readers, and their actions have obviously been a huge inconvenience for me.

My IP address changes automatically, but I can be called back to this (or any other) discussion by an email to the address in the first paragraph at the top of the article's "Talk" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.252.72 (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, this user's IP range seems to be rather active on the related article since July 2016. See here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans, and I freely acknowledge that each of the edits from this IP range was mine. Initially I wasn't identifying myself or posting conflict-of-interest notices because I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia protocol and didn't expect my edits to be controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.255.25 (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Constitution Party of South Dakota nominated Kurt Evans for the U.S. Senate on July 9, 2016, as can be seen at their website here. As can be seen here, they went to court in an attempt to get him on the ballot. A candidate does not have to qualify to be on the ballot in order to be nominated by a party; see a recent example here. I had suggested that a short section on the litigation might have be worthwhile. However, the IP user claiming to be Kurt Evans repeatedly undid perfectly reasonable edits because he did not like them, and also engaged in personal attacks against me, as can be seen on the article's talk page; this IP user is likely also him. ALPolitico (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. As I clearly explained on the article's "Talk" page on September 25, the state party nominated me to become its candidate in the event that federal district judge Karen Schreier approved its motion to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy. Judge Schreier explicitly rejected two such motions and thereby explicitly prevented anyone from becoming a Constitution Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. The edits "ALPolitico" describes as "perfectly reasonable" were actually false, misleading and possibly defamatory, but I was wrong to retaliate with personal attacks, and I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.224.26 (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing false, misleading, or defamatory in any edit I have made, in this article or others. ALPolitico (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It was probably wrong to call "ALPolitico" smug, obnoxious and egomaniacal, but claims like that one are the reason. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.224.26 (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Kurt, hi!

I've only been skimming the report here so I don't really know the full detail of what's going on here. But, 2016? Seems a little far away from 2002. You're telling us that you tried to run this year, right? Has anyone tried to explain to you how we operate here? If something is going into one of our articles, it needs to be backed up with a source that's considered Reliable. Have a read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source for a bit more insight. If you can find a source (or sourcess) that we class as 'reliable', please, copy and paste it/them to here, and we'll see what we can do about putting in your info, otherwise, sorry man, but you're out of luck.

Collaborate with us, please? Be our companion, not our problem. (I apologise if that comes across as rude) MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 08:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying I tried to run this year. I made myself conditionally available to the state Constitution Party, but federal district judge Karen Schreier rejected its motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy. These are the sources I'd placed in the article. —KE

Heidelberger, Cory (August 18, 2016). "Constitution Party Still Fighting to Place Evans and Schmidt on Ballot". Dakota Free Press. Retrieved November 22, 2016. http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/08/18/constitution-party-still-fighting-to-place-evans-and-schmidt-on-ballot/

Heidelberger, Cory (September 8, 2016). "Constitution Party Definitely Not Getting Evans and Schmidt on Ballot". Dakota Free Press. Retrieved November 22, 2016. http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/09/08/constitution-party-definitely-not-getting-evans-and-schmidt-on-ballot/

For the record, I'm not sure why SineBot didn't sign the above comment. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.253.233 (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Just awake and aware of this as I got the notification. If anybody feels the protection needs changing feel free to change it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I hate to be the WP:STICK guy, but, can someone at least point out what's wrong with his sources? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 20:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with his sources...they just don't say what he's trying to argue while citing them. "Conditionally available" is not a term mentioned in either of those articles and the Independent Political Report has the official press release proving that Evans was the candidate for the Constitution Party. This source also has it. In the case of the sources he cites, they do prove that he failed to qualify due to the order from Judge Schreier. This did not remove him as the constitution party's candidate, however, which is why it is listed this way in the section he is contesting. Proper weight has been given to all sides of this story based on the sources available. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

To second this, the sources are fine, they just don't say anything about a "conditional nomination," which isn't even a legal thing. His sources even have links leading back to the press release on the Constitution Party of South Dakota's website, which I listed above. He was nominated by the party. He appears to be upset about the failure to qualify (although he was upset about not being listed as being a teacher, as well as being listed as a perennial candidate at first--which I acknowledged one could debate, even if I still do not agree, since his bids were spread out, hence why I did not put it back in), as he feels that it makes him look bad or something like that, which his statements on this page seem to enforce ("This [the listing] carries the strongly negative connotation of someone who neglected to count the cost of a campaign and raised expectations he or she couldn't meet." "'ALPolitico' and 'Dane2007' have both refused to explain why they're so determined to conceal this information from Wikipedia's readers, and their actions have obviously been a huge inconvenience for me." "It was probably wrong to call "ALPolitico" smug, obnoxious and egomaniacal, but claims like that one [my factual statement that I have never added false, misleading, or defamatory information to any article] are the reason." et al, as well as the legal threats directed at Ymblanter and other incidents of that nature). I reverted his edits, including the sources he added, because the previous sources were also fine, while the additional sources added nothing new. I later added the court ruling, which a friend from another website had found and sent to me, as an additional source showing the failure to qualify. ALPolitico (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. I know very little about Wikipedia protocol, but I'm glad "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" are finally willing to have this conversation, and I'd like to ask for the discussion to be kept open at least until I have time to respond (hopefully by Saturday). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.237 (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans again. I'm not sure what "Dane2007" means when he says my sources don't say what I'm trying to say. The Dakota Free Press articles from August 18 and September 8 show that my potential candidacy was dependent on the state party's ballot-access lawsuit and that the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when its motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy were rejected by federal district judge Karen Schreier. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. It's true that the party's July 11 release didn't mention the fact that my potential candidacy was dependent on the lawsuit. That was misleading, and it bothered me, but I'm not sure how it's relevant when "Dane2007" admits there's nothing wrong with the Dakota Free Press sources.

"Dane 2007" seems to be simply ignoring my comments about the meaning of the word "qualify" in this context. In South Dakota a candidate for statewide office "qualifies" by submitting a required number of petition signatures to the secretary of state's office. Saying someone didn't "qualify" means that he or she declared as a candidate but didn't submit the required signatures, which is nearly the opposite of what happened in the case at hand. Saying I didn't "qualify" also falsely suggests that it was possible for me to do so.

I'm not sure what "ALPolitico" is talking about when he says I was "upset about not being listed as being a teacher." I haven't taught since before I rejoined the Constitution Party, and considering that the motions to allow my candidacy were rejected, my occupation has little if any relevance to the article, but I'm far from upset about it. I'm also not sure what "ALPolitico is talking about when he mentions "legal threats directed at Ymblanter and other incidents of that nature."

The claim by "ALPolitico" that he repeatedly removed my sources because they "added nothing new" is absurd. The information in the Dakota Free Press article from September 8, for example, couldn't possibly have been available from any previous source. His claim that "a friend from another website" sent him the link to Judge Schreier's final August 31 ruling also strikes me as highly suspicious. I'm wondering how this friend supposedly knew "ALPolitico" would be interested in the the link, as well as how the link was supposedly sent. Those documents were actually purchased and uploaded by Cory Heidelberger to serve as a sub-link for the Dakota Free Press article, which "ALPolitico" refused to properly credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.225.8 (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to refresh your memory regarding the legal threat on Ymblanter's talk page. In any case, I maintain that the sources do not show what Kurt is trying to argue and will leave it up to the closer to determine that. I still believe the diff as listed in dispute is the most appropriate version of the information. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

My friend and I often talk about unusual people and situations on the internet, including situations such as this specific one, hence how he knew I would be interested. I do not know who Cory Heidlberger is, and do not recall seeing his name mentioned in the document. Regardless, none of these sources (nor South Dakota law) say what you are claiming. ALPolitico (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, listing someone as "Failed to Qualify" when he or she was unsuccessful in qualifying for an office, especially if he or she was nominated for said office, as Kurt Evans was, is standard. It appears in dozens, if not hundreds, of articles. ALPolitico (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. In the conversation with "Ymblanter" from September 25, I asked, "Do I have to file a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia?" In my next comment I wrote, "Wikipedia is spreading lies about me. Do I have to file a defamation lawsuit to get those lies corrected?" In the comment after that I wrote, "I don't know how Wikipedia works, and I need someone who does know how it works to help me."

That wouldn't have been a threat against "Ymblanter" even if had been a legal threat. It would have been a threat against Wikipedia. Above "ALPolitico" accuses me of legal "threats" (plural) "directed at Ymblanter" and "other incidents of that nature." Thanks to "Dane2007" for the link, but I'm still not sure what "ALPolitico" is talking about when he makes these accusations.

The explanation for my October 17 edit said the direct link to Judge Schreier's final August 31 ruling (added as a source by "ALPolitico") was "an uncredited sub-link from the September 8 Dakota Free Press article I'd posted as a reference before, which ['ALPolitico' had] arbitrarily removed for no stated reason." Now he's suggesting he didn't know that, which raises the question of whether he was even bothering to read the explanations for my edits before he undid them.

There's nothing wrong with saying someone didn't "qualify" when he or she was unsuccessful in qualifying for an office, but there's something very wrong with suggesting someone was unsuccessful in qualifying for an office when he or she never attempted to qualify because circumstances beyond his or her control made doing so impossible. The assertion by "ALPolitico" that none of these sources say what I'm claiming is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.209 (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

At this point, it would be good to mention that I had to contact Wikimedia Legal and was advised not to communicate any further with any IP's who claim they are "Kurt Evans". All communication will be referred back to Wikimedia Legal. I also used to block all such IPs on the spot for legal threats and block evasion, but since apparently the IPs are dynamic only rangeblock would make sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Legal probably gave "Ymblanter" good advice considering the way he's acted. Now if they'd just tell "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" to stop smearing me. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.227.15 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? Is it reasonable to restore the article and semi-protect indefinitely to prevent future disruptive activity? -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that a reasonable next step would be for "Dane2007" to explain why he insists on sourcing to an August 15 Ballot Access News article that contains outdated and misleading information rather than to the Dakota Free Press article from September 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.226.58 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(The preceding comment is from me. —KE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.226.58 (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans again. By admitting that there's nothing wrong with the Dakota Free Press sources from August 18 and September 8, "Dane2007" and "ALPolitico" have implicitly admitted that the Ballot Access News article from August 15 contains outdated and misleading information. I know very little about Wikipedia protocol, but in view of the fact that "Dane 2007" and "ALPolitico" have yet to offer any explanation whatsoever of why they insist on sourcing to the Ballot Access News article, I'd like to request an additional week of temporary full protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.249.156 (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Protection has already been extended. As "ALPolitico" and I have repeatedly stated, your sources do not claim what you're trying to say in the article. Ultimately an administrator on this page will have to review and decide this as we are unable to come to a resolution on this issue and going back and forth on the same statements isn't going to get us there. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. The Dakota Free Press sources from August 18 and September 8 show that my potential candidacy was dependent on the state party's ballot-access lawsuit and that the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when its motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy were rejected by federal district judge Karen Schreier. That's exactly what I'm trying to say, but I'm not suggesting that we ought to go "back and forth on the same statements." I'm suggesting that "Dane2007" and "ALPolitico" ought to explain why they insist on sourcing to an August 15 Ballot Access News article that contains outdated and misleading information rather than to the Dakota Free Press article from September 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.249.46 (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe the protection is about to expire, and "Dane2007" appears to be the only one who's responded to my request for an additional week of temporary full protection. As I've mentioned several times, I know very little about Wikipedia protocol, but I'm wondering whether the "closer" he mentioned on Friday would be willing to at least identify himself or herself. Thank you. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.247.177 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I just discovered the "Protection log" page, which seems to indicate that "CambridgeBayWeather" had extended temporary full protection to December 5 several hours before I requested the extension. I now realize that's probably what "Dane2007" meant when he wrote above that protection had already been extended. I apologize for my Wikipedilliteracy and ask everyone to disregard my previous comment. Thanks. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.252.39 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Good grief. It seems like the obvious solution here is to simply explain in greater detail why Kurt Evans was not on the ballot. "Failure to qualify" is clearly too vague of a term for some people to grasp - just put a sentence or two explaining why he wasn't allowed on the ballot, and decide what a good header for his subsection should be. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I had already suggested, back in August or September, that a subsection on the litigation (or a mention of it directly under the Constitution Party header) may have been worthwhile, not to mention that it would be consistent with the format of similar information in other articles. The IP user either did not like this or did not care. Regardless, there's still no such thin as a conditional nomination. ALPolitico (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Both "ALPolitico" and I had agreement on what was in the article to match how this situation is typically presented, and early on I even made some collaborative changes with Kurt to clean up what he contributed. Here is an example of how it was originally listed. The headers, as they are in the disputed diff, reflect accurately what happened. If you review the desired modification by Kurt, he wants to modify the entire section to state things that are not stated (WP:SYNTH) from the later sources, which is what both ALPolitico and I object to. Throw in the fact that he has violated WP:LEGAL with Ymblanter and come extremely close to violating that with me, it's hard to have any collaboration. If theres another sentence to be added and it isn't WP:SYNTH, let's work that out in my opinion, but in this entire AN/I no such proposal has been made and the WP:SYNTH additions have been what he has been defending. I hope we can come to some sort of resolution on this. Indeed, I would agree to adding the sentence as follows without changing the headers: "He failed to qualify for the ballot after a ruling by federal district judge Karen Schreier ruled the party did not follow South Dakota's requirement for participating in the primary election." -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dane2007:, @ALPolitico:. Since Kurt's major problem seemed to be terminology, I found myself spending a stupid amount of time tonight reading South Dakota's election laws. OK, so please note that what follows is an attempt to follow Kurt's logic to the end, rather than to propose my personal reading of statute for inclusion in any article. The term "qualify" is not defined by South Dakota state law. The law seems to assume that anyone seeking to be a candidate, is indeed a candidate, whether or not they are on a ballot. A candidate who wishes to appear on a ballot must deliver a "certificate of nomination" to the appropriate office, which is then either certified or it is not. Candidates who appear on the ballot are "certified", not "qualified". So for all Kurt's talk of what he was or wasn't, it seems to be based in his own perceptions and expectations, rather than in any legal definitions. In other words, a newspaper article that says Kurt "was not qualified for the ballot" cannot be said to be making a factual error, because legally it doesn't mean anything! It thus appears to me entirely appropriate to just follow whatever wording that is used by reliable secondary sources, while of course explaining fully but succinctly the nuance of his situation. TLDR version: I agree with you two. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Thanks for checking it out. Perhaps extended semi-protection or indef semi-protection on the page? -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. "ALPolitico" says he'd previously suggested that a subsection on the litigation may have been worthwhile. He doesn't mention that he "suggested" it in his explanation for an edit that removed any mention whatsoever of the litigation. He also keeps arguing about a "conditional nomination" as if I'd used that phrase myself. Regardless of how one labels what happened at the state party convention, federal district judge Karen Schreier explicitly ruled that no one would become a U.S. Senate candidate as a result.

Now "Dane2007" has introduced the new accusation that I'm attempting to synthesize from multiple sources. All I'm trying to say is that the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy were rejected by Judge Schreier, which is clearly stated in the September 8 source alone (the source "Dane2007" has repeatedly removed for no stated reason). The sentence he suggests adding also misrepresents Judge Schreier's rationale for her ruling.

It still seems to me that a reasonable next step would be for "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" to explain why they insist on sourcing to an August 15 Ballot Access News article that contains outdated and misleading information rather than to the Dakota Free Press article from September 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.251.158 (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans again. Since "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" are still refusing to offer any explanation whatsoever for their sourcing decisions, I'd like to address the comments of "Someguy1221" above. His contributions seem to be a good-faith effort to understand South Dakota's somewhat complex system of election laws and apply them to this situation, but I'd like to clarify a couple of points he appears to have missed.

By the time I rejoined the Constitution Party in early July, there was absolutely no provision in South Dakota law for anyone to become either "qualified" or "certified" as a U.S. Senate candidate. At that point the state party's lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of South Dakota election law was the only possible path for anyone to be legally recognized as a candidate, and therefore the only sense in which I could have hypothetically been considered a candidate is the colloquial sense.

Although there's a colloquial sense in which I'd declared that I was available to become the party's candidate if its motions for ballot access were successful, I've never made anything resembling a formal "declaration of candidacy" as that phrase is normally understood in this context. I gave no media interviews, opened no campaign website, raised no money, spent no money and did essentially none of the things typically associated with a political candidate.

I'm not seeing any obvious problems with the proposal by "Someguy1221" to "just put a sentence or two explaining why he wasn't allowed on the ballot, and decide what a good header for his subsection should be." This is a suggestion: "In a previously pending ballot-access lawsuit, the Constitution Party of South Dakota filed two motions to allow 2002 Libertarian Party nominee Kurt Evans to become the Constitution Party's 2016 U.S. Senate candidate. Federal district judge Karen Schreier rejected the respective motions on August 15 and August 31." It seems to me that "Denied ballot access" would still be the most accurate subheader for the section.

If the above information is clearly stated in the body of the article, and if the Dakota Free Press sources from August 18 and September 8 are both included, I'd also consider withdrawing my objection to the Ballot Access News article from August 15 as an additional source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.247.102 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 for socks

Socks of Bigshowandkane (SPI linked) are continuously blanking the user pages of previous socks. Furthermore, one of the socks has left this message on my talk (in addition to this edit summary). The IPs (they are using two kinds) are all similar to each other, so would it be possible for a rangeblock? Both me and Sjones23 requested one at the SPI, but no one has responded, so I'm bringing it here for consideration (it's getting annoying and action needs to be taken of sorts). Pinging @Sro23 and Ebyabe as they are directly involved in this as well. Also to note that I will not be notifying this user since the IPs change constantly, making notification useless. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: according to the edits presented at SPI the range is 2600:1000:b000::/42. It's part of a Verizon Wireless range. I expect there would be a lot of collateral damage on this range if it were blocked. BethNaught (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Persistent attempts at censorship, tag-teaming reverts, on page for 2014 Crimean Referendum by User:Volunteer Marek

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

---

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

Volunteer Marek keeps reverting content additions to the 2014 Crimean Referendum page, ignoring Wikipedia guidelines (particularly BRD), and presenting inane, hypocritical, and obviously-thin rationale for why they're removing content. Looking at the history of Volunteer Marek, and some of the administration discussions concerning this editor, it is clear that Volunteer Marek uses their editing to cultivate a dominant representation of their personal preference, while removing opposing information, regardless of how factual and thoroughly-substantiated the information they remove is, and they coat their edits with rationale that doesn't always hold up to basic common sense, or the Wikipedia guidelines.

In particular focus for this reporting, is Volunteer Marek's persistent reverting of this section, concerning GfK poll results taken from the Crimea region in January of 2015, and published in February of 2015:

GfK, a German pollster, and the 4th largest market research organization in the world, conducted a survey in the Crimean region by telephone from Ukraine between January 16 and 22, 2015, and published their results on Feb. 4, 2015. The survey's intention was to probe the satisfaction of Crimean residents in their decision to reunify with Russia, rather than re-identify with Ukraine, and was launched with support from the Canadian government's Canada Fund for Local Initiatives. The survey expected to find Crimean dissatisfaction with the 2014 Crimean referendum, but instead discovered that 82% of Crimeans "fully endorse" Crimea's secession from Ukraine and joining the Russian federation, and that 11% of Crimeans "mostly endorse" Crimea's secession from Ukraine and joining the Russian federation, while just 7% "disapprove" of Crimea's secession from Ukraine and joining the Russian federation. The results were a surprise to the poll-organizers, who had not even conducted any polling of Sevastopol, the most pro-Russia city in Crimea. The results of the GfK survey were reported by Bloomberg, Forbes, and many others. The GfK poll results are discussed in an online video, by the poll's organizer, political scientist and Ukrainian national, Taras Berezovets.

There are 3 total reverts of this section by Volunteer Marek, with each one restored, and then citations and content added to attempt to address Volunteer Marek's concerns. Each time, Volunteer Marek came up with a more flimsy rationalization for re-reverting the updated work: Volunteer Marek revert rationalization #1: '"newcoldwar.org" is not a reliable source, neither is an opinion piece' (The "opinion piece" is a Bloomberg article reporting on the GfK survey) Volunteer Marek revert rationalization #2 (after I added direct link to the full GfK PDF report, as well as a video with the poll-organizer discussing the results): "which is a primary source. Need reliable secondary sources" Volunteer Marek revert rationalization #3 (after I added citations to Forbes, WinnipegFreePress, The Oriental, all reporting the GfK survey discovery): "The bulk of this edit is still based on vkontakt and other non reliable sources."

None of these claimed-justifications for removing the content are solid, and all seem to rely on Volunteer Marek's opinion and personal preference in simply not wanting this information to be present on the Wikipedia page. Volunteer Marek has a history of editing the 2014 Crimean Referendum page, and also other pages, in a manner which keeps pulling it towards what I think is a one-sided presentation. There was a discussion on an administrator reporting page recently (I read about a week or so ago) about issues with Volunteer Marek's conduct, in which multiple people chimed in to mention issues with Volunteer Marek's editing conduct. I'm sorry that I don't know how to find that discussion, right now.

I have had similar issue with Volunteer Marek in the 2014 Crimean Referendum page, where Volunteer Marek use revert tag-teaming with Famspear in order to circumvent the 3RR rule, in violation of BRD, which states that a 3rd-party is forbidden to join in someone else's edit-warring. In that incident, BRD was cited as the justification for edit-reverting, insisting that discussion was required prior to making edits (despite no criticism of the edits having been brought up by those claiming BRD), and despite BRD saying many times over that "BRD is never a reason for reverting":

- "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

- "BRD is never a reason for reverting"

- "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work"

- "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones."

- "Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit, and whether you would like to make that bold edit instead."

- "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it."

- "Some editors may invoke this process by name in the edit summary; however, BRD is never a reason for reverting."

- "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

- "Warning: engaging in similar behavior by reverting a contribution during an edit war could be seen as disruptive and may garner sanctions. Never continue an edit war as an uninvolved party."

- "No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion."

- "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring"

Volunteer Marek appears to me to make a lot of political edits, with the edits all aiming to move the appearance of subject-presentation towards favouring a particular perspective. And in the case of the 2014 Crimean referendum, Volunteer Marek has repeatedly undone great swaths of work without raising valid justification, while veiling their rationalization for doing so as some small personal issue. And Volunteer Marek doesn't accept when their presented criticisms are addressed in an updated edits, and instead just shifts their criticism to something else, or to make up something obviously opinionated or baseless, to form an excuse to just revert the edited work.

I would very much appreciate a review of this section of the 2014 Crimean Referendum page, and hope for a resolution to this disruptive and anti-editor behaviour. Thanks!

BTW, I tried to post a mention of this on Volunteer Marek's Wikipedia page, but I can't access it right now. I just get a blank screen when I visit their Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Volunteer_Marek

A Registered Poster (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Not addressing the matter of Marek's conduct, for which I admittedly lazily invoke TL;DR, I think it might be worth noting that the original poster here has according to his history here only edited in two subject areas since the middle of the year, when the account was created, and a rather smallish number of edits in total. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If I may ask, why might that be notable? The edits bring much information that is / was missing to the subjects, expanding their wiki pages with full substantiation through citation of usually-direct sources. Apart from Volunteer Marek, nobody has raised any issue with the edited content. And whenever Volunteer Marek's claimed issues were addressed and fully resolved, they shifted their criticism to increasingly-flimsy and hypocritical concerns, to the point that there is no question that the issue has not been so much with the content that I've added (note, "content I've added," rarely removing or modifying pre-existing content) but with a personal bias in the person initiating the reverts. I believe that if my edits are good, then they deserve to stand. And that if my edits require minor fixing to be good, then they deserve to have those minor fixes mentioned, and not the full (sometimes many hours of) works reverted, as recommended in BRD A Registered Poster (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@A Registered Poster: If you are so concerned about your work being reverted, why have you not engaged in any discussion about your prospective edits on the article's talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: When criticism has been mentioned, I have been able to address those criticisms and have edited the content to resolve those criticisms - and I think that common sense expects that to be the end of the matter. If there's something further to be discussed, I cannot know that because I am not a mind-reader, and I cannot start discussing on the talk page what I don't even know to exist as an issue. Wikipedia BRD says:

- BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones.

- BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.

If an editor has already reverted a work, then the work is restored and edited to address their criticisms, yet the original revert-initiating editor is persistent in reverting the edited work, each time shifting their issue-citation, then it becomes apparent that their initial concern wasn't the actual issue with the content... if each time that issue is solved, some other flimsier issue is then cited. If those latter issues were in fact the underlying issues, then they would have been mentioned first, and not after all previous issues were addressed head-on, to full resolution. This is a case of moving the goal-posts with the intention being to keep one aspect of the subject from having significant representation on the page.

Volunteer Marek's reverts have consistently ignored that their criticisms were addressed, and always moved the goal post to something more inane and opinionated, in order to revert the same information. Also, moving to revert large amounts of good-faith work rather than bringing up the select issues and allowing them to be rectified is behaviour that is not condoned by Wikipedia's guidelines in the first place:

- Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit, and whether you would like to make that bold edit instead. The other disputant may respond with another bold edit, or with a refinement on your improvement. The "Bold–refine" process is the ideal collaborative editing cycle. Improving pages through collaborative editing is ideal. However, if you find yourself making reversions or near-reversions, then stop editing and move to the next stage, "Discuss".

Volunteer Marek has not attempted to bring forth their issues before reverting, and has instead constantly reverted as much content as possible, citing rationale that, when addressed through edits, they make clear wasn't the their primary motivation to remove the content.

And then there is also this: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed."'

My edits expanded their respective subject coverage, unquestionably improving their Wikipedia pages. To blanket-revert them, while citing ever-finicky rationalization for it, is outright against Wikipedia's recommended conduct, respect for other editors, their time, and effort, and the factual details of those subjects. A Registered Poster (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Editing behaviour of User:Spacecowboy420

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

---

• Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. On the article Korean ethnic nationalism, the user set back several versions that I edited. I explained what has been removed on the talk page. The user demands me that I have to contact the authors who added the specific parts removed. Although, Spacecowboy420 never contacts any others when he removes large parts from articles. He does not give any arguments against my edits, he just says I would have to ask other users for permission.

Side note: I asked for a third opinion and mentioned in on WikiProject Sociology

Moreover, the user added knowingly false content. He added: "Even the United States, an ally of South Korea, has expressed concern over the harsh and ubiquitous nature of South Korean racism, with the [[United States Department of Education|U.S. Department of Education]] releasing a report on the matter in 2009.<ref name=PaulJambor/>" (diff)

However, it is not an official document of the United States. Paul Jambor is an English language instructor in Korea and the article expresses his opinion and not an official government opinion. Spacecowboy420 also knew about it, since he participated in a previous discussion where a user reported the problem with the source so that it had been removed (diff). Still, he describes his edit as "awesome".

2. The user claims other users to be sockpuppet accounts without any proves.

Diffs:

• [200]
• [201]
• [202]

The edits User:Teamupsmith made on the article China–South Korea Free Trade Agreement were correct and I told Spacecowboy420 on his talk page. Still, he thinks it was okay to undo it since the user would be a "sockpuppet".

This has been an issue before, but Spacecowboy420 never responded to it. Neither Teamupsmith nor AmericanExpat are banned or blocked. --Christian140 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Disregarding any claims about edit warring, a Google search appears to confirm Christian40's description of the Jambor paper as not being a document of the US Department of Education. Indeed, it appears not to be peer-reviewed at all, [203], and therefore is not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be edit-warring against WP:BRD. If you want your contested version to prevail, gain consensus. I've restored the longstanding version as per SC - go discuss the changes in a civil fashion, please. Any more edit-warring and I'll report both of you at WP:3RRN. --Pete (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Christian140's edits are quit POV and disruptive. The editor is also edit warring on Health in South Korea. Christian140 violated WP:3RR on the article.[204]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are both equally culpable in this edit war. My recommendation is to forget about this ANI complaint, head back to the talk page, and continue to follow dispute resolution. Spacecowboy is as likely to be blocked for edit warring as you are. Also remember that there is no rush. If your changes to an article are an obvious improvement, then consensus will fall on your side, eventually. It's no big deal if the wrong version persists for a while. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

1. This is a content dispute. I don't really want to waste other editor's/admins' time on something that can be dealt with on the article talk page.

2. Re. Sockpuppets. The article in question (as well as numerous other articles) have been the subject to a large amount of sock edits by a confirmed and indef blocked user. This new editor that I reverted followed exactly the same pattern and worked on the same articles as the blocked user and all of his sock puppets. It is more than fair to call it a sock account and treat it as one, seeing that quite blatantly is on. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Massyparcer/Archive for more details, for more details. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: I'm doing what I should have done straight away, and making an SPI. At least that has a chance of clearing one part of this mini-drama. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 randomly adding fictional characters to ethnic categories without any evidence from the articles or anywhere else that they're accurate additions.

Sorry if this is the wrong place. This is a new account, but I'm not new here and have been dealing with vandals since at least 2005. GoldenRainbow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), however, I have no idea how to deal with, and I can't tell if the person even is a vandal or actually believes his information is correct. What this person is doing is adding fictional characters to categories such as Category:Fictional American people of Maltese descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), but the problem is there's very little evidence that they belong there in many cases. I can provide more examples, but I think his history shows that he's been making a lot of edits like these. I can't go around checking all of his edits for accuracy and reverting the bad ones, so this is more to bring the edits to someones attention because he's been doing this unnoticed for some time now. Supergahd (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry guys being so adding fictional characters to ethnic categories without evidence, I will remove some of my edits. I'm cleaning them. If I revert to nor don't remove my edits, then please take them with a grain of salt until I receive word from any studios. But still, please accept my apology. I promise that if I ever add them again, I will add an explaination to "take it with a grain of salt". I will focus on other stuff instead of TV shows and movies. This is more like a dispute than an incident. GoldenRainbow (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No, wait. The problem is that you're adding the items at all. If you don't have any evidence, don't add them. The information is supposed to be accurate to the best of knowledge. You're using this site, as well as other places, like IMDB and TV Tropes, to start your own "conspiracy theories" (which is what you've admitted on another site). Leaving edit reasons is not enough, because most people are not going to see it. Knowingly spreading false information is not okay. Supergahd (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Okay, I just saw his recent edits, and leaving reasons like "Take them with a grain of salt till conformation from Nelvana, his actor or the creator" shows that this guy has no clue how this is supposed to work. Someone needs to deal with him. Supergahd (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Indeed - this edit from today is worrying. GoldenRainbow had previously self-reverted by way of apology, and then made three edits including this one. Incidentally, I'm not as clueless as my IP status might suggest (I've been editing with various IPs for several years) but - categories on redirect pages, are they a thing? 84.93.51.170 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
        • I'm cleaning them up. This time is for real. I'm also adding more accurate additions based on articles. Can we close this thread, I understood Gahd's advice. GoldenRainbow (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
          • @84.93.51.170: Categories on redirects are and should be rare. But they are sometimes useful when the redirected name is a better choice than the primary name for how an article should be listed within a category. There are a few of these in Category:Triangle centers, for instance, for centers that don't have their own article but are described as part of other articles. I have no opinion on their use in GoldenRainbow's edits, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
            • Thanks - that makes sense. 84.93.51.170 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Pizzagate and related pages

This BLPN discussion got my attention first. Relevant pages include:

• Pizzagate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• And any pages that link to those.

Long story short, a lot of overly-vocal conspiracy theorists with a large web presence are making all kinds of claims regarding a pizza place and associates of the Clinton campaign that go well against BLP (not to mention common decency or sanity). It'd be reeeaaaallly nice to have plenty more uninvolved admin eyes who are familiar with discretionary sanctions until it settles down and the true believers go away. I'm arguably involved by this point, having tried to fix the draft (even if it's something I'd rather not touch). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Some things needed: Multiple users in those talk pages could stand to be topic banned under discretionary sanctions. The draft will probably need page protection at some point, as this topic is going to attract some WP:SPA trolls (for example, User:PingPongIsChildRape) and sockpuppets. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ugh. Can it just be MfDed or AfDed (or even SPEEDYed)? It's already a non-notable cooked-up nonsensical problem, and keeping it around or posting it live will only increase the problem. Softlavender (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I would've just deleted the draft if I could find a valid reason to, but having fixed it, I have to say that it does (unfortunately) meet WP:GNG (for now). That also doesn't resolve the problem of the disambiguation page. I can't figure any valid reason for deleting the disambiguation page, and that'd only feed the conspiracy theorists further at any rate. However, because it's a disambiguation page, we apparently aren't allowed to cite sources explaining that the conspiracy theory is debunked and founded in alt-right delusions, inviting Pizzagate believers to come in and argue that it's inappropriate to call it a conspiracy theory without a source. The course of action I'm seeing (though I'm open to suggestions) is that the draft will be tightened down to the strictest adherence to policy, put in to article space (link to that replacing the unsourced link in the disambig page), and then at least a few uninvolved admins keep eyes on it and remember to apply discretionary sanctions authorized by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Just as a heads up to uninvolved/non-local editors, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is unrelated to the existing Pizzagate section, which is derived from an event in football in the UK in 2004. It might be worthwhile for an admin to protect that page to keep uninformed users from trying to tie those unrelated articles together because they happen to share the heading. Thanks! Alicb (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The draft needs to be deleted posthaste. It can't ever become an encyclopedic article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't The Onion. I can think up WP:FRINGE, and WP:NOT off the top of my head on why this article would never make it into mainspace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:Fringe says that our articles on fringe topics uses high quality academic and journalistic sources and is dismissive of fringe ideas. I've fixed the draft to do so. What part of WP:NOT specifically precludes us from summarizing mainstream journalistic sources' dismissal of this conspiracy theory? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment An MfD discussion has been started here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It's weird, I actually heard about this and tried to search for an article here, so there's that I guess. I haven't looked into the sourcing but I can see something existing. Arkon (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I've imposed extended confirmed protection on Pizzagate due to continued disruption. Right now regular semi-protection is doing reasonably well at Comet Ping Pong - the disambiguation page must look like a safer target for drive-by disruption. A number of editors seem to think that it's not a BLP violation if you sling accusations without naming a specific person: I've attempted to correct some of them, or at least warned them. Several admins have placed DS alerts - probably BLP notices are most appropriate. And I've done a fair amount of revision deletion: there was some bad stuff happening before more eyes started looking at it. I've only done the most blatant diffs that contain direct defamation, as opposed to defamation-by-insinuation. I think oversight suppression would be appropriate for many of the revdels. Acroterion (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm watching the relevant pages and will help where I can - I won't offer any !votes or editorial opinions anywhere in order remain WP:uninvolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Category talk:WikiProject Law articles

Could an admin please have a look at the history of Category talk:WikiProject Law articles. An IP-hopping editor keeps adding large blocks of copied text. Some of it appears to be personal email correspondence that might need revdel for privacy reasons (it's non-English, so I'm not sure). To a lesser degree, the IPs have occasionally done the same thing on other pages, so the same revdel may be needed elsewhere as well (Talk:Fuad, Talk:Email service provider (marketing), etc.) Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I have found dozens more instances of this "spam" (I don't know what else to call it), with the oldest apparently being by Againstotrure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in 2008, so this has been going on for many years. See my recent edits. Perhaps an edit filter? Deli nk (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• There was nothing but spam in the history of the talk page, so I just deleted it and restored the first two revisions. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• I have cleaned up the other talk pages. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock required

Hi. I noticed an IP vandalising User talk:GiantSnowman and realised that the same editor has been attacking other editors (for example User talk:Kelisi) and edited Margaret Rhodes, but they have been using different IP adresses. Could we have a rangeblock please? Qed237 (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You'd probably want at least 85.255.233/24 and 85.255.235/24. They're quite busy ranges and could only be blocked for a short time unless there's something seriously disruptive - IMO, semi-protection is a better option. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Okay, I dont know much about different ranges but since this was attacks against user talkpages I thought it was best with rangeblock so that other editors still can discuss. Qed237 (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

And it continues... Qed237 (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please! Now again a new IP was blocked by User:Widr after block evasion and attacking editors. Qed237 (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've protected one user talk page. I assume GiantSnowman can take care of their own. The article itself is protected for the next week. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It goes without saying that I dont agree. Now a lot of new editors and other IP can not speak to User:Kelisi. It is better to stop the abusing person from editing and at the moment the can still be disruptive at talkpage of User:GiantSnowman. Qed237 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Block lots of unregistered users from everywhere, or any who post to one talk page. It's an age old conundrum, but from what I've seen there's more unregistered users editing everywhere than talk page posters. Other admins are welcome to have a different view. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Hob_Gadling

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

---

Hob Gadling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Various interruptive, abusive and uncivil behavior in the past. I registered a recent condescend and abusive comment [205] on the Skeptical Movement talkpage and deleted it. I went to Hob Gadlings's user page with the intend to provide a civility warning. There was already one, about the same talk page, from another user and about another incident. User_talk:Hob_Gadling#NPA. Hob Gadling answered the first civility warning with another accusation against me, That guy has been lying like crazy. My civility warning has been deleted as "cleaned up bullshit". [206]. I am far from playing the damsel in distress here, but it has been way too much now. And I have the impression that User:Hob Gadling is disturbing WP and various talk pages playing on a personal feud and starting to harrass me. That is far from being in line with basic policies and it starts to disrupt due process and it annoys other users as well. [207]. Polentarion Talk 19:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC) PS.: "as above" repeats the behavior according WP:Uncivil "as above"

I see the diffs, and the user was clearly being uncivil. However, you made it sound as if the personal attacks have been somewhat excessive, and you didn't provide any diffs to prove persistent harassment or that the user is disturbing Wikipedia because of a grudge against you. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but more proof may be necessary before an admin would take action. DarkKnight2149 20:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Action towards persistent harassment, I mean. As previously mentioned, the comments that you did provide diffs for were uncivil. DarkKnight2149 20:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

One about the impression of feuding: [208]. "lying again", "weasel" at Ebell.

Another about the allegation of Ebell killing people: he is okay with third-world people dying as a result of his ideas. NOw I asked him wether it meant he accused Ebell of being a Killer. Answer is an interesting question "What do you mean, killer? ... Just the thing Ebell wants to do, right? ... Do you object to Lysenko because he did what he did in the name the the Working Masses, and are all in favor of the same basic idea if it is executed in the name of Free Markets?" and "don't bother to explain it; your tales are usually not very relevant to the matter at hand.". It might be (mis)understood as refering to me - as if he accuses both me and Ebell as killers, botching science and accepting people dying due to a misguided policy then.

Further examples: multiabusive approach alluding to "brown nosing", "My experience with your behaviour on WP over the previous years tells me that it would have been a bitch to ask you questions". Honestly, I am not too sure what "brown nosing" means (and I do not want to know) or why he uses "bitch" here. It sounds like swearing and abusing between the lines.

"You were lying again", "it's not my fault you don't understand enough science...". and so on. Polentarion Talk 21:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• This concerns disputes regarding Myron Ebell who heads an organization that is "focused on dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis". Hob Gadling supports reliable sources and application of WP:FRINGE, and this ANI report looks like an attempt to remove an opponent for some minor eruptions. The diffs do not show problems that require any further action, although Hob Gadling should take a break from that area for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • But do keep in mind that some of Gadling's comments were genuinely uncivil and uncalled for. DarkKnight2149 00:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• • My ANI and both civility warnings were based on incidents on the Skeptical movement talk page. Those "minor eruptions" have been repeated. The author denies and deletes repeated civility warnings with derogatory comments. I provided links to the Myron Ebell talk page after User talk:Darkknight2149 asked for more diffs. Hob Gadlings comparision of a nerdy Washington lobbyist with Trofim Lysenko is far from being appropriate. Nothing allows him to attack me like that as well. Neither tone nor wording is appropriate. Polentarion Talk 05:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Further difflink, to give you the flavor: [209]. Hob Gadling accuses me of having used namely, "diversionary tactics (Red herring)", "misrepresentations of what other people said (Strawman)§ and "dodging and weaseling". "All we got as defense of the move was, instead of reasoning: quotes from Olav Hammer, a historian of religion who specializes in esotericism and does not like skeptics." He (quote) "decided the damage done was not bad enough". That said, the tone is repeatedly condescend and abusive, towards me and as well my sources. Hob Gadling statements are factually wrong as well - I used a much larger variety of scholarly sources (David J. Hess, a sociologist in Nashville, Asbjørn Dyrendal, a NTNU prof and coworker at skepsis.no) and internal sources, like Daniel Loxton to support the move. Hob claims I used just Hammer and claims him to dislike skeptics. Neither true nor proven nor relevant, Hammer got a public prize in Sweden for his work on why people belief in pseudoscience. Hob seems to decide on his personal views what is to be liked or disliked here. Thats not how WP works. Polentarion Talk 05:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I just examined your "give you the flavor" link and it shows no problem. Please do not waste people's time—either post some actual violations of CIVIL or move on. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if anything Hob Gadling was absolutely right in his comments about Polentarion, who does appear to use such tactics when one looks back at his editing. I'm going to close this now before an Australian hunting weapon comes into play. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

---

• Nothing personal, but can we have a moratorium on circumlocutions for boomerangs? EEng 15:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Juanda International Airport

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

---

Hello. An anonymous user added some destinations in the article which I have proven to be untrue or fake. I reverted the article but yet the user added the destinations again. What concerned me is that he stated this:" Kt siapa Fake information anak pelacur kayak yg paling tau aja ente Wisanto ?". That sentence is something very vulgar in Indonesian and I am really offended. I need the administrators to help me in this issue. Please check the revision history of the article for the evidence:[210]. Cheers. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The IP that Wisanto is referring to is 180.244.141.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I just put the message into Google Translate, and it certainly appears to be vulgar indeed. The IP seems to be talking about (ahem) child prostitution. As someone who doesn't speak Indonesian, I can't determine if it's a full on personal attack, but the user certainly aims to offend. DarkKnight2149 04:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

And the user just tried to remove this report twice ([211]). DarkKnight2149 04:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Apparent attempts at censorship

The user Xtremedood (talk · contribs) seems to be engaged in a long-term agenda to censor valid information about the prophet Mohammad, and just deleted/redirected an entire page filled with references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xtremedood

[212] [213] [214]

[215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224]

He has apparently also been blocked several times previously due to edit-warring. Help would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree these are problematical edits -- driveby removals and re-removals made without the least bit of discussion and with inaccurate edit summaries. I also believe that Xtremedood is often a problem editor who is unable to edit collaboratively, particularly not on the subject of Islam, Mohammed, or related subjects. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Xtremedood's editing behaviour clearly demonstrates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, making biased edits in favour of Islam and Pakistan. In just two recent scenarios, this user attempted to link a pornographic actress with Catholicism and attempted to state in an article that anyone else besides Muslims, such as Indian Hindus, use the term fakir erroneously. Digging through his contributions reveals more alarming edits. Does anyone oppose a topic ban for User:Xtremedood on articles related to religion in general, as well as articles covering India and Pakistan-related topics broadly construed? If not, he needs one, badly, as other editors are getting worn out with having to engage with this problematic editor. Jobas (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Resonating with what User:David_A mentioned above, User:Xtremedood just attempted to redirect a page about Muhammad to a distantly related article. Edits such as these are frustrating and harmful to the project. Jobas (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The criticism article is about other peoples perspectives on the issue, and has nothing to do with the objective analysis of Prophet Muhammad's teachings about slavery. Xtremedood (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• I Weakly support a topic ban. There is some pretty obvious POV pushing, and the user has a slightly troubling habit of quickly erasing their talk page (or the section) whenever they are given advice, a warning or have had sanctions placed against them. However, it's not entirely clear to me that they're unable or unwilling to learn to play by the rules. However, I'm open to having my mind hardened. Once I started looking through their talk page history, there's a lot of indications of a battleground mentality. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:MjolnirPants, I do not believe that I have demonstrated WP:BATTLE as demonstrated by my statements below. I think it is important to get both sides of the picture prior to making a decision. Xtremedood (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban on articles relating to religion and India-Pakistan broadly construed. Despite the issues raised by User:David A in his OP, User:Xtremedood continues to edit war on these topic areas, e.g. Example One, Example Two. If this user is topic banned, their very recent history of using sockpuppets to edit war in these topic areas (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xtremedood) should be taken into account and monitored. Given these facts, to respond kindly to User:MjolnirPants, it should be "entirely clear to me that they're unable or unwilling to learn to play by the rules" and should be topic banned in order to prevent further damage from being caused to the project. Jobas (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment - In reality, user:Jobas has an extremely pro-Christian bias. He deleted referenced materials [225], [226], [227], [228] which apparently shows a strong pro-Christian bias and which according to a consensus at the time [229], between Jobas, myself, and User:Sturmgewehr88 was considered to be a legitimate entry in the article at the time. Jobas alongside similar pro-Christian editors are far numerous on Wikipedia and their POV should not take precedence, just because they have more people. There is a clear denial of facts by Jobas and his supporters [230]. Mia Khalifa still identifies as a Catholic [231], whereas the current article makes it look as if she might have left Catholicism with ambiguous words such as "although is no longer practicing" [232].

My edits are based on fair, source-centric, and authentic information. Jobas on the other hand has committed himself to censoring sourced materials on the article List of converts to Islam from Christianity, over here [233][234], while on the other hand introducing questionable, or incorrectly sourced materials (including blogspot references) on the List of converts to Christianity from Islam, [235], [236], [237].

• As far as the Early Muslim-Meccan Conflict, I am correct in my edits as it consists of misattributed references, take a look at the references, the sources do not indicate as the author (user:Misconceptions2 states, who has a strong history of sockpuppetry and deception [238]. Also, literally zero sources refer to it by the non-NPOV name he allotted for it "Caravan Raids". I have attempted to engage in the users like David A who opposed my edit in dialogue, here [239], however they refuse to even try and validate the references and have not responded to my inquiries. The entire article is made up of misattributed sources, which do not say as Misconceptions2 states.

• As far as the Al Kudr Invasion, the article was created by the same user (user:Misconceptions2), who has the extreme history of deception and sockpuppetry. He misattributes the source, stating that the Prophet Muhammad kept the one-fifth to himself, whereas the Mubarakpuri reference does not say that. In reality, the one-fifth is in regards to a Quranic commandment, and the money was used for freeing slaves and helping orphans.

• As far as the History of Sufism is concerned. This was a disagreement between user:MezzoMezzo and I. We discussed it over here [240] like civilized people and came to a conclusion. I disagreed with the source being so old (from 1930) and how it contradicted recent studies like those of Carl Ernst and William Chittick. For example, Carl Ernst has gone as far as saying that Orientalist sources during this period (1930) should not be trusted on page 2 of [241]. Titus Burkchardt has also contradicted such data during this period in his book, Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, on page 4 [242].

• As far as the Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi Article is concerned, it was a similar disagreement with user:MezzoMezzo, where we discussed [243] like civilized people the nature of the source and came to the conclusion that the source was not about criticism. Which neither David A or Jobas participated in. The source does not state any criticisms and therefore is a misattributed source and should be deleted. See our discussion for further information on the matter.

User:David_A and user:Jobas have no foot to stand on, as Jobas's biased edits on the Mia Khalifa, List of converts to Islam from Christianity, and List of converts to Christianity from Islam shows a strong bias. Wikipedia should not be a place in which the more numerous Christian editors have say over others. Xtremedood (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

user:Jobas also never informed me that this discussion was going on. This is clearly an example of unfair editing and trying to censor my perspective. Xtremedood (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Topic ban--Yeah, you're not supposed to write about your perspective on Wikipedia. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xtremedood:Jobas also never informed me that this discussion was going on. This is clearly an example of unfair editing and trying to censor my perspective.

1. It was David A who opened this discussion.
2. He absolutely did notify you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. There is something wrong with my notifications, I have 21 of them and they are not going away. Xtremedood (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

So, in your defense against my statement that you show indications of a battleground mentality, you accused another user of being "unfair and trying to censor [your] perspective" based on zero evidence and zero effort to find said evidence? That's battleground behavior, right there. Indeed, your defense consists entirely of attacking another editor. If you're trying to convince me to change my weak support to a strong support, you're certainly on the right track. I'm not suggesting that Jobas' behavior is perfect (I haven't looked into their behavior yet), and it is possible that they may need to face sanctions as well, but that is an entirely separate issue from your own behavior.

By the way, there is a link at the top right of the notification drop-down that says "Mark all as read" which you can click on to dismiss your existing notifications. Furthermore (though it is sometimes buggy), clicking on an individual notification should mark it as read. Finally, if you have viewed all of your notifications (by opening the drop down), the icon will be grey, even as it shows the number of notifications, instead of red, which means you have new notifications. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe my record of attempting to engage in and engaging in dialogue for matters pertaining to misattributed sources shows that I am not operating upon such a mentality, but instead I am showing concern for the authenticity of the sources and the content in the sources. I have shown above that for all of the articles referenced by David A that I have a strong justification for the edits. I had invited David A to talk about the matters and for all of the links he has cited he was never a part of the dialogue.Xtremedood (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I Support a ban, for much the same reasons as Jobas and MjolnirPants. The user appears completely unrepentant and relentless in pursuit of an agenda, with several past rule-violation incidents. David A (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have invited you to discuss the issue [244], however, you never (not even once) have engaged in dialogue about the issue. We also had discussions about the other articles you have referenced [245], [246] and you have not even once joined in the conversation. Xtremedood (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to admins: As any decision-making body or person, whether in courts or in the legal field takes in to consideration the mental health of both the complainant and defendant, it should be noted that David A self-identifies as autistic, OCD and ADD on his profile [247]. Attention to the details is critical to this issue and while I have demonstrated sound rationale for my edits, citing clear misattribution of sources as the primary cause, I have not heard from any of the other editors about actually verifying what the sources say. Xtremedood (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not engaged in dialogue because I am not expertised regarding the subject matters, and am also technically on vacation at the moment. I have however, noticed repeated attempts to remove information, with highly similar patterns in terms of viewpoint-pushing.

As for the issues that you noted, they are not mental illnesses, just minor handicaps, and completely irrelevant to this case. They do not make me unstable or mentally defective. David A (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

To claim a user's ASD prevents them from making sound judgements is rather ridiculous. In fact, in most cases, the opposite is true (I too am autistic, and it is for me). Xtremedood is setting up a strawman's argument. Patient Zero^talk 12:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The OP presented 13 very clear instances of blatant censorship and POV-pushing: article blanking, section blanking, and repeated undiscussed removal of cited material. This sort of behavior has been going on ever since he started editing a year and a half ago. I support a topic ban on articles relating to either religion or India-Pakistan, broadly construed. If admins do not wish or see their way to implementing this at present, I suggest a sanction in the form of a warning that if this behavior crops up again in any way, an immediate topic-ban or indefinite block will ensue. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have discussed those edits as being justified in accordance with WP policies, see my above comment. In your most recent edit, of Al Kudr Invasion you have utilized a misappropriation of source. I have set up a conversation here [248] to discuss it. You have readded the following statement: "He also kept a fifth of the spoils." This is not an accurate portrayal of the instance, as the one-fifth that was taken was used in accordance with the Quranic commandment 8:41, [249] which states: "And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion - the day when the two armies met. And Allah , over all things, is competent." I find it strange that you want to include reference only to Prophet Muhammad but not Allah (God), relatives, orphans, needy, and a stranded traveller? Any reason for such an edit? The Mubarakpuri source clearly states "he had set aside the usual one-fifth". Why is it that you want to mention only Prophet Muhammad but not Allah (God), relatives, orphans, needy, and a stranded traveller of the one-fifth? Wikipedia should not be the place of such anti-Islamic bias. Xtremedood (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the issue here seems to be that you wish to remove any references that you consider to have a negative bias against Islam, and its prophet, but this is not how Wikipedia is intended to work. Wikipedia is strictly supposed to list accurately referenced facts, or statistics, regardless if these display a particular religion, ideology, opinion, or other concept in a positive or negative light. You cannot start to remove anything that you dislike, in order to deliberately try to slant public perception. David A (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

So with 5 editors in support of a ban or permanent topic ban, will it be carried out? David A (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WP consensus is not based on votes. As of now I have not seen any solid policy related arguments for a ban. The ban seems like true censorship. My edits are based on solid rationale and do not violate WP policy. With the extreme sock-puppetry and mass mis-attribution of sources involved by the article's creator (Misconceptions2), admins should not base their decisions on votes. Also, I am the only editor who has actually tried to start and engage in discussions over here for the articles you have referenced, whereas none of the other editors here have so far even engaged in 1 single dialogue about the articles you have referenced. Xtremedood (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Regardless whether Misconceptions2 has inserted references or not, they should not be removed wholesale as long as they are accurate. And I sincerely doubt that he alone wrote all of the material that you have edited out during your time in Wikipedia. Not to mention, your block history is suspicious in itself, so you are not one in position to cast stones. David A (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well that is exactly the point. They are not accurate, and you have made so far zero attempts to try and discuss it with me. The other materials I have removed, I have justified as being either outdated, a misrepresentation of the source(s), or WP:OR. Xtremedood (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing premature edits without reliable sources

User:Aaron's The Best is a user actively engaged in editing articles concerning Australian television channels. However, on multiple occasions, he has come into conflict with WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RELIABLE over premature edits that he bases on unreliable sources and/or personal speculation. Such examples include the following:

1. October 2016: The renaming of the article Food Network (Australia) to SBS Food Network because, and I quote, "It's all because of SBS Viceland's name. SBS are probably doing an mistake by referring the channel (Food) without SBS in its name, but they are referring the Viceland channel WITH SBS in its name. So it looks like that's what the channel should be called", speculating a change that even now has no backing whatsoever. I questioned him on his talk page concerning this and explained the policy behind the reversion of his edits.
2. November 2016: Premature edits to the article SBS Viceland by changing the name of the channel from its then-current name (SBS 2) to the rebranded "SBS Viceland" before the rebrand occured.
3. November 2016: Premature edits to the article ABC HD (Australian TV channel) based on then-speculation concerning the network's launch of high definition simulcasting with no reliable sources to support his editing. I cautioned him on his talk page concerning this and again cited policy.
4. December 2016: The renaming of the article Prime HD to Prime7HD based on speculation concerning the network's possible future launch of high definition simulcasting with no reliable sources to support his editing.. I have cautioned him on his talk page concerning this, citing different policy in addition to that cited in previous instances.

It appears that despite my continual contact to advise him of policy and offer assistance in future, he has not taken this on board and continues to erratically edit articles in this manner. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 08:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this user has a WP:COMPETENCE problem. Despite being very new, he has carried out a large number of ill-considered page moves, as shown by the messages on his talk page. This would not be so bad if he would communicate and we could be sure he was taking the comments on board. However, he never replies, so it is hard to gauge what is going on with him. He just carries on with more of the same. A block would at least force him to engage and speak to other editors. SpinningSpark 14:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, it's Aaron and I have listened to you. I'm pretty sorry about adding info on articles of Aussie TV channels that are actually rumours from the MediaSpy forums. Lucky that ABC HD one was confirmed a few days later by the ABC themselves. Also, I'm sorry about the Food Network move, since SBS don't refer Food Network with SBS in it's name, but they do refer Viceland with SBS in it's name! I won't add any rumours from the MediaSpy forums anymore. Thanks. Aaron's The Best (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Aaron. It would be helpful in future if you tried to reply to people when they contact you on your talk page. SpinningSpark 22:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Aaron, we are here to help. If we leave a message on your talk page concerning your edits and you do not understand, please respond so that we can help you. I think that it would be best for you to step back from moving pages for the moment so that you can learn more about the process to prevent incidents like this in future. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 04:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Aaron's The Best: Just because you are occasionally vindicated in your premature edits doesn't entitle you to make so many errors. Until it's reported by the subject in a press release or covered in generally accepted reliable sources you shouldn't edit wikipedia to include information. This especially includes rumors on forums. Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Users Dkendel and Ilham muhammad

Dkendel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ilham muhammad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I posted to the edit warring noticeboard about this User Dkendel about 24 hours ago but no action has been taken yet. In the meantime their behavior and has escalated/had other concerns arise. So I am bringing it here.

First of all, Dkendel has been edit warring at List of Mayday episodes. He has reverted multiple times

1. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752503032&oldid=752447155
2. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752435497&oldid=752319185
3. 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752238584&oldid=752162761
4. 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752265688&oldid=752263872 Which was a modified version of a post that had been reverted here[250]

He has done further reverts today. This is just one example.[251]

Note- Dkendel reverted not just me, but at least three other editors. This User's only other edits, all to [[ Norwegian Long Haul]], have been reverted. Dkendel edit warred there also.

That covers the edit warring.

Today, after I updated my post to the edit warring noticeboard[252], he reverted it.[253] That makes it a case of WP:DISRUPT.

Another issue raised here[254], is that this User might be a sock of another account User Ilham muhammad. IM's last edit[255] was to List of Mayday episodes and was very similar in content to those done by Dkendel that I list up above.

The issue with Dkendel is more than edit warring. Socking may be taking place plus a violation of WP:DISRUPT, so I bring it here to ANI....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Weird activity from Kacperf

Kacperf (talk · contribs)

This user's behaviour has me stumped. Most of it seems to be pretty benign, but some of them are pretty weird, especially interpreted in light of each other.[256][257][258][259] He also curiously thanked me for this edit.

Additionally, the first edit looks like they are also these IPs[260][261] which makes it difficult to interpret as a good-faith mistake the same user made three times, and if there aren't multiple IP trolls on WAM that makes it even worse.

Thoughts? I honestly have no idea.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The account is new, so I believe that trolling is a strong possibility. All of the users current contributions seem a bit strange, save for the sandbox edits. I also wouldn't rule this out as a new user simply edit testing, though it's odd that they thanked you for the warning. I don't think that there are enough contributions to determine if it's a compromised account or if multiple people are using it. DarkKnight2149 17:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Admin comment still needed DarkKnight2149 19:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with creation of 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.

---

Hello,

I am trying to create a new page at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Access_to_Affordable_Medicine and I received a message to say that this was blocked/blacklisted and that I should contact an administrator.

Many thanks Reece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reece.urcher.001 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Reece.urcher.001: Only reports regarding incidents, such as disruptive editing, go here. Try visiting the Teahouse or WP:AN for help. DarkKnight2149 00:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hold on, the OP has a legitimate complaint. Yes it might have been better for them to go to WP:AN instead of here, but a question regarding a blacklist which limits the creation of an article to admins only is certainly a reasonable topic for an administrators' noticeboard, and not everyone knows that there are two of them. How about instead of blowing off the inquiring editor, one of our admins explain to him or her why the article title is blacklisted (which it is), and what the editor can do about it, if anything.

I would suspect that one thing they could do is create their prospective article in Draft space (by going to Draft:Access to affordable medicine), write the article there, and then approach an admin about the possibility of moving it into Main space. I don't know why the title was salted -- I assume for a good reason -- but if the new draft doesn't have those problems, then an admin can do the move, thereby creating the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Tried that, and the title is salted in Draft space as well, but the same principle should hold by creating it in Reece.urcher.001's User space. Try User:Reece.urcher.001/Access to affordable medicine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that's blacklisted as well - shows you how little I know about salting titles. Can an admin explain the situation to Reece.urcher.001? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Reece.urcher.001: I've created a blank page for you to edit at User:Reece.urcher.001/Access to affordable medicine. Please start the article and get in touch again when it has enough content to require moving. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Thank you very much for your help. I will let you know once the article is ready. -- Reece.urcher.001 ^(talk) 15:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Correct and substantiated information was reverted without review.

Dear admins, please check the recent revisions of Ilias Psinakis. On my side I had provided only confirmed sources and no personal point of view. Just facts. Please, review the issue in terms of WP:COMPETENCE. Another editor, having no idea about subject of the article being threatening me all the time, even when I totally respect previous version and just make corrections to clarify the facts and add links. LanaSimba (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Without getting into your content dispute, I'd like to point out that 1) You need to notify people when you take them to ANI. You did not do this, as far as I can tell. 2) The editor you reverted is a long-term, experienced editor, so citing WP:COMPETENCE probably isn't the right thing. I'm not saying that person is innocent, I'm saying you're going to need to cite something else (harrassment? Point of view pushing? Something else?) and probably directly links to direct instances of breaking policy. You're not going to get anywhere with this as your starting off point. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

[ec] The other editor was Winkelvi, by the way. I looked over the changes and have the impression that some changes were good and some not. I don't understand why he removed the birthdate from the intro (it's sourced and present elsewhere in the article, after all), but a bunch of what he removed was unhelpful. Looks like a simple content dispute that doesn't need admin intervention. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A review of the complaining user's edits will show several net negatives: repeated edit warring, tendentious editing, POV pushing, WP:SPA, WP:OWN, WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE, likely WP:COI and possible personal involvement with the article subject. A look at the article talk page and the user's talk page shows they have been asked if they are involved on a personal level with the article subject, they declined to answer. Brought to AN3 more than once for the obvious. They even opened an AN on me last month and were told, essentially, that they needed to back off from editing the article as well as editing disruptively. They've been warned by admins more than once. WP:BOOMERANG has also been suggested with this individual everytime they've come to a noticeboard because of their refusal to get it in combination with their tendency toward WP:IDHT. The article they are stuck on has been edited and re-edited numerous times by several editors over several months to remove the poorly sourced or unsourced content, fluff, peacocking, undue weight and resume-like additions they insist on adding over and over again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, Sergecross73 I just say that proper sourced information was deleted (as you mentioned about the date of birth) and proper sourced correction of the place of birth was reverted. What kind of policy is it? When an article after all contains wrong data... ? LanaSimba (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you're asking, but to recap the main ideas here:

1. WP:COMPENTENCE is the wrong thing to cite here. Its a rationale where you're basically saying someone is incapable of understanding or learning the very basics on how to edit Wikipedia. As such, it wouldn't make sense to accuse this an editor who has edited for years in multiple content areas. It's the type of things you'd say about a ten year old child who doesn't understand how to write in paragraph form yet, for example.
2. This sounds like you both just have a disagreement in whether or not content or sources are appropriate for an article. That's what we call a "content dispute". Content disputes don't belong here at ANI. When you have a disagreement over content, you start a discussion on the article talk page about solving the disagreement, and if you're still in a deadlock, you ask Wikiprojects for help, or start up a Request for Comment. In short, you need to try to "work out a compromise", not "report them for disagreeing with you". Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73 Thank you for your attention. I supposed that understanding of basics of Wiki editing includes first of all knowledge and understanding of subject of the article someone is editing. Or at least possibility to read information, provided in sources. Well You are right, this is the "content dispute" in the end. But how to dispute content when any revision I made is being reverted without reading? I wrote the article from the very beginning providing all sources, never wrote a single fact from my own point of view and just feel responsible for correctness of data. May the article be summarized, but not contain wrong data, absent in any sources. And why should be deleted sourced data about the personality parents if it is a Biography? Why shouldn't be present sourced information on current projects? LanaSimba (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Start up a discussion on the article talk page, and make sure Winkelvi is aware of it. (He looks active there, so he'll probably see it automatically.)
2. Make a list of every idea you wanted to add/change from that edit, and then discuss them each one, one by one. Mention what the old version was, your proposed new version, and the source that supports it.
3. Wait for a response from Winkelvi or any other participants for each idea, and give further input as needed.
4. If there is a consensus in your favor, or a compromise most agree with, make the change.
5. If there is not a consensus in your favor, you cannot make your change until if/when there is a consensus of people supporting your change. That's when you consider forming a neutral question about it at a WikiProject or a Request for Comment.
6. If there is a consensus supporting your change at this new discussion, make the change. If not, then you've probably run out of options, and should drop it for now.
7. Repeat for every individual idea there is disagreement over. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73 Thanks! I did as you wrote here. Except for that I have no desire to talk to Winklvi or argue on anything due to their dictatorial manner. Let other people argue with this person. I referred to other editors, who previously commented on the article and did contributions. I specified all data and sources. I may give more sources if needed. If any other editors may come and attentively read the versions, and give their ideas, it would be great. LanaSimba (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

OWN, editing while logged out, edit warring, and more

Could anyone take a look at Wim Naudé (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? There's quite a lot of controversy and edit warring that is occurring. There 2 IPs in the mix are obviously either meatpuppets or the users editing while logged out. Personally, the material could be viewed as contentious, however there are references regarding it. How reliable the sources really are are debatable. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an economist nor do I play one on TV, but other than numerous tense errors throughout the article, I don't see the problem. So two things: First, if your main concern is reliability of sources, might this be better placed at WP:RSN, and second, if your complaint is about editor behavior, you're going to need to provide specific diffs and editor names (and notify said editors) so your complaint can be dealt with. John from Idegon (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

there is someone doing "pranks" - his word

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

---

at Richard Hunt (sculptor) right now. Could someone check it out? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Just request page protection at WP:RFPP. And if the user continues vandalism at other articles, consider reporting all of the IPs at WP:SPI. DarkKnight2149 22:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I did. Since Richard Hunt (sculptor) is a living person it seemed that something needs to be done. Carptrash (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Because this is a BLP, I've left an only warning on their talk page. The IP is registered the City College of New York, if they vandalise again, a complaint could be made to the college. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard for them track down the party responsible. Blackmane (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:JohnWilkinson

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

AIV got me nowhere with this a few weeks ago, so I'll try here now that it's come up again today. User:JohnWilkinson is a bizarre SPA who keeps parroting some nonsense about how the International Boxing Organization (IBO) does not belong in the lead sections of certain articles (mainly Gennady Golovkin, plus other articles involving the IBO), and keeps removing it after a series of ranting edit summaries. He also seems to have a presence outside of WP, promoting his agenda at forums and comment sections. Examples: 1, 2.

Several such edits have been made in the past few months; multiple warnings given; a previous account for the same thing earlier in the year; and his occasional rambling at my talk page (3, 4) is annoying as hell. Example quote from the latter:

"I am writing to you as your superior in this ONE FIELD."

I mean, seriously? Discussing the matter with him won't work, as I can't make heads nor tails of what he's going on about! What's clear is that he won't stop removing the IBO from articles, which is disruptive and basically vandalism by this point. Tempted to say NOTHERE, even though others might view his edits as "misguided but good faith". Regardless, he's an absolute nutjob. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything in either account's contribution history that is particularly out of bounds, like edit warring. There may be a WP:COI, since the user seems to have strong personal opinions about IBO. It seem like WP:DR is the best course of action. AIV is not the right venue because there's no indication that the edits were done with the intent to damage the encyclopedia.- MrX 19:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

He is edit warring, though, and disruptively so. Besides the continual rambling and nonsensical edit summaries, he has given no justifiable—or even decipherable—reasons to remove the IBO from those articles. More like WP:PN should apply here, as most of what he writes is the very definition of "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." WP:DR seems like a waste of time, since he only makes the edits every few weeks and is not a regular user. Perhaps WP:EWN instead? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

So that people trying to help you don't have to trudge exhaustively through two accounts' contributions, please provide diffs showing edit warring.- MrX 23:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of slow-edit warring at Gennady Golovkin:

• Current edition with stable lead, and IBO included: 1
• Lead with content (IBO) persistently removed by User:JohnWilkinson – 19 Oct, 29 Oct, 18 Nov.

Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

These edits, while repeated, aren't occurring at a high enough rate for me to justify this as active "edit warring" or that any administrative action is needed at this time. I think the best course of action is to inform the user that he needs to discuss his thoughts and rationale on the article's talk page and explain (with references and sources that support his argument) why he believes that his contributions are valid and the content modifications/removal he's been making are accurate improvements that are verifiable. He just needs to get affiliated with dispute resolution and understand the need to properly discuss disagreements like this on the article's talk page, that's all :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Heh, so I'm on my own with this one. Fine, but I'll say this outright—I dread being obligated to interact with him in any way. Any non-admin user who calls themselves my "superior" on WP, whilst touting a fictional organisation set out to "fix" boxing, and saying things like "I can assure you..I myself am one of the "greats" in understanding modern boxing at admin levels", or leaving their damn phone number at my talk page, is not worth my time.

Let alone the walls of text I would expect to receive, like these posts from him (under the same name) on boxing forums: 1, 2. Quote from the first one: "I am AT WAR against the IBO which is the FIRST &FOREMOST MAJOR DECEIVER!" That's what I'd be opening myself up to. Just sayin'. I don't believe this paragraph violates WP:OUTING, since he himself has repeatedly posted his own name and number on WP, which seems to be covered by this RfC: "Noting undeniably obvious cross-site identity". In fact, it looks to me like WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BADPOV are at hand here—by admission he is not posting as an individual, but as an "organization" with an agenda to push.

The only reason I brought it up here is because his agenda has been persistent enough and presented in such a bizarre manner throughout the year to warrant at least a mention to someone who would notice, and because a huge amount of boxing topics are on my watchlist. If the unlucky souls at WP:DR or WP:COI think they handle him, good luck to 'em. Advice appreciated nonetheless.. Close away. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Someone who posts under what looks like a real name, and even if not their real name then a screen-name they have used on other websites, is making themselves a target for outing. However, Googling other users' names and then posting the results on-wiki is never OK, even in such cases. It is not clear how Mac Dreamstate came across the above-linked forum posts, but if a search engine was involved then they should refrain from doing so again.

Mac Dreamstate, the wording of WP:OUT is interpreted as narrowly or as broadly as is seen appropriate on a case-by-case basis, and attempting to interpret anything on Wikipedia talk:Harassment as justifying posting links to off-wiki posts that do not appear to be directly related to Wikipedia (there is no canvassing involved) is not going to end well. Apparently, that policy page is extremely controversial and has gone through more than ten archive pages in the past two years, so it seems extremely unlikely that a "consensus" on the talk page that is not explicitly enshrined in the wording of the policy itself will either cause you to be blocked or prevent you from being blocked.

However, JohnWilkinson's on-wiki behaviour certainly seems disruptive, and (even if there was unprovoked Googling involved) I can definitely see this working out like scenario (1) in the diff I linked above, and I honestly have no problem with that. The outing, if that is what it is, is borderline and the lesser of two evils in this case. But (assuming the above links were discovered by Googling JohnWilkinson's username) Mac Dreamstate should also be issued with a stern warning against further behaviour of this kind.

Just my two cents.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion that I Googled his name for the purpose of outing—in my staunchest defence, I only Googled the "organisation" he touted in a WP edit summary, namely the "UWBCAFO-I". From there, I arrived at the aforementioned forum posts; note that I refrained from linking to any social media accounts. Therefore if I get a warning, it will absolutely be under assumption and without proof. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That edit summary is indeed weird, and I too would have likely Googled it just to try to figure out what it meant. But posting a link to a forum thread you happened across in such a search, especially in a context like the above (clearly meant to create a negative impression of a user based on something they posted off-wiki that didn't mention their Wikipedia activity), is definitely textbook WP:OUT. Whether or not you are blocked or otherwise sanctioned for it will likely depend entirely on whether your assertion that the user is a disruptive SPA is determined to be accurate. I already pointed this out above, though. I know it's not how it's supposed to work, but WP:OUT is one of those policies where the users who violate it usually only get sanctioned if they committed it against a user who was contributing to the project or if they themselves were already on the way to a site-ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That's clearer to me now. If an WP:OUT violation has occurred due to my having posted the forum links, and I get a warning or sanction for it, then I will accept that as an honest mistake I made. However, if a block ensues, then I'll definitely try challenging that through the right channels (requesting unblock via talk page, I think). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88 Mac has apologized and explained how he came about the linkage. In light of JW's own statements, I would be inclined to leave it just as a warning and caution Mac to approach an administrator privately about future precieved linkages to determine if they are valid for building context of an editor's PoV or if it should be kept quiet. Hasteur (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be inclined to leave it just as a warning and caution Mac to approach an administrator privately about future precieved linkages Did I imply I disagreed? :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:R3tr0 - 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.

---

Can another admin please take a look at User:R3tr0 and his edits? I'm thinking this is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE but since I am involved in the pages at issue I thought it best to bring it here.

• 22:17, May 17, 2011 in response to speedy deletion of a page (deleted 7 years ago!), user deletes warning tag and incoherently rants: "fascist pigs that are controlled and on their knees, decided that revealing the truth about a now fictitiously estimated billion dollar company couldn't be provided here - so they have 'deleted with so much haste' that 4 mods wanted to shove their nose so far up whales ass they made a new logo for it."
• 11:48, December 2, 2016 - disruptive tag bombing
• 17:44, December 2, 2016 - incoherent, all-caps edit summary, edit summary "CHANGE ABSOLUTE INFORMATION WARFARE"
• 18:30, December 2, 2016 - incoherent, all-caps ranting on talk page
• 18:37, December 2, 2016 - continued tag-bombing, disregarding talk-page discussion; " history will see not all were brainwashed peons"

--Neutrality^talk 00:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Done. I agree, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. Neutrality^talk 00:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 is NOTHERE

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

---

User:JordanBaumann1211 is not here to build an encyclopedia. Ninety percent of his nearly 400 edits are decorative edits to his own User and Talk pages and subpages. The few substantive edits that he has made to articles have been unsound or contrary to consensus, and quickly reverted – see for example this history. By and large he stays within his own user space, and in that way is not that disruptive, but from time to time he strays beyond it to (for example) create User pages for non-existent users under variations of his own name (speedily deleted); a redirect from User:Jordan Baumann (perhaps an earlier account?) to his current User page; and direct edits to User:APersonBot/defcon. I’ve raised some of these issues on his Talk page but he is unresponsive.

I’m posting with two requests – first, I don’t want to raise things at ANI if it's not necessary and so, were there intermediate steps that I could have taken? And second, now that the matter is here, would someone please take appropriate action, whatever that may be. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: This editor may be WP:NOTHERE, but they are not being disruptive, and so should probably be left alone. RedPanda25 18:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

And yet the 2nd example given in NOTHERE is "A primary focus on Wikipedia as a social networking space (resumes, social media type pages, etc.). See WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK for more information." And that's the lion's share of this user's activity: creating a hub of links to their off-site online presence. Keri (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the linkfarm from his userpage, which was a fairly obvious breach of WP:UP#PROMO. If he still wants to stick around and do some work related to Wikipedia, he's welcome to, but we're not going to be his personal advertising portal. (While we sometimes allow people who've made significant contributions to Wikipedia to bend the rules regarding userspace, he certainly doesn't yet fall into that category.) ‑ Iridescent 20:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense to me and seems like a reasonable place to start. I'll return if he becomes disruptive. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked him as NOTHERE. First, he is disruptive, even if much of the time he's not classically disruptive. Second, he doesn't have to be disruptive to be blocked as NOTHERE. He's using resources and making edits that have no benefit to the project. Finally, he's probably a kid and is WP:CIR (some of the things he says are downright weird).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Having just spent a sizeable chunk of my life I'll never get back deleting enough copyright violations from him to keep CAT:CSD in business for a week (and trying to do something about this mess he's left at Commons), I agree. I can't see a single legitimate edit in his history (and I can see some outright vandalism). ‑ Iridescent 23:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As the user's own posted linkfarm pointed to off-site profiles where they claim to be aged just 11 years old, erring on the side of caution would suggest blocking and revoking talk-page access as sensible actions. Children are not deemed capable of legally releasing content under license (or so I seem to recall; the case I'm minded of took place on ANI, and eventually involved no less than J. Wales himself). And Wikipedia is WP:NOTBABYSITTER to follow around and clean up to ensure that children don't leave online footprints they may regret later. Of course, their claims about their age elsewhere are not necessarily true and not necessarily pertinent to Wikipedia, but then you have to consider the implications of claiming to be someone that you are not. Keri (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Please block Baseball Bugs and Someguy1221

Dealt with. (NAC) -- The Voidwalker Whispers 19:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. They're both spamming me with abusive emails, showing a picture of my face glued to a pig wearing a Nazi uniform and being dragged to a guillotine by Stalin. Underneath the picture it says "You're an enemy of the people, and a dirty Nazi pig. I hope you die soon." It also states my address and full legal name. Can they both be blocked?Johnny the kid (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Recommend we don't revert this report, but, instead BOOMERANG block, then delete, then rev-del. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Just WP:RBI this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Umm... should we request CU on the OP? It's clearly a sock of someone. If that someone still has an active account it needs to be blocked, and even if they are already blocked then stuff like the above could be cause for a CBAN. The only reason to just block the OP and forget about it would be if they are already banned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC) They've been doing this sort of thing every couple of weeks for months, there might be enough IPs to assemble some kind of rangeblock(s) by now. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I agree with Hijiri88. I remember seeing this exact same post maybe one-two weeks ago, but instead putting the blame on MarnetteD and other users. I'll fetch the post. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I found the most recent ones: The grandmaster of the internet (talk · contribs) and 73.162.64.116 (talk · contribs). I hope this helps. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)  Checkuser note: Johnny the kid and The grandmaster of the internet are  Likely. Unfortunately, a range block is not possible here. Mike V • Talk 18:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC) It's a troll who's been active for a number of years and has produced probably many hundreds of socks, occasionally via creating an account, but most of them by IP-hopping. He makes this same bogus accusation every few weeks or months. The most recent occurrence was the 28th. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Niele~enwiki reported by User:Beshogur (Result:)

Page

Qabasin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Kurdish tribes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ezidkhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Niele~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user called me three times "racist" and "vandal". I think this user should get sanctions. This user must read: Wikipedia:No personal attacks article.

1. [262] "with the by anti-Kurdish racist laws in Turkey banned letter Q"
2. [263] "Undid racism-motivated vandalism of currently blocked kurdophobic and armenophobic user"
3. [264] "Undoing a rasism-inspired edit"

Beshogur (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Could also be using an IP to edit (same type of language used in edit summaries), breaking WP:3RR: [265], [266], & [267] --Darth Mike^(talk) 13:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Those edit summaries are pretty bad, and content-wise I'm not a fan of (for example) overly-long section titles that are clearly only included to appease nationalist readers and make reading more of a slog for the rest of us, or replacing legit variant names with what is clearly the same name spelled slightly differently. Or, for that matter, claiming that a user who has received a short block for edit-warring should therefore have their edits to other articles reverted with impunity. That said, the user has a clean block log -- would a warning be enough? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Changed my mind. "Ctrl+F"ing "block" in their contribs brought this up. No one who thinks "This user was only edit-warring with Beshogur, who has also been blocked for edit-warring in the past -- is that really all that bad?" is a valid reason to unblock someone should be allowed to continue thinking in that way and contributing to Wikipedia. Maybe if Niele had a block in their own log they would stop haranguing Beshogur about the block the latter received two weeks ago. I say block for 24 hours since it's the first time they are getting blocked (although probably not their first offense). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Beshogur, you are obligated to notify the user of this thread, using the red template at the top of this page. Softlavender (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this for Beshogur. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Technically, there is no obligation to use any particular template to notify someone that they are being discussed on ANI. I think what was meant was per the red/orange template at the top of the page. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I have left a warning on Niele~enwiki's talk page, as the edit summaries presented here are personal attacks and are not positive nor collaborative in regards to proper dispute resolution and interaction behavior. If this continues, this user can be blocked for disruption and repeated violations of Wikipedia's civility policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The article was in a perfectly stable condition as this [268] for three years, until this edit on 22 August 2016 [269] by an IP changing "is a Kurdish town" to "is an Arabic town", which precipitated an edit war that has lasted up to the present moment. The edit-summaries quoted aren't great, but every single one of you is edit-warring and ethnicity- and nationality-warring, and you are all going to end up blocked if you don't collaborate and discuss and provide sources instead of edit-warring. The only editor who has even bothered posting on the article's talk page is Ferakp. You all should take a lesson from him. In essence this is a content dispute and should be settled on the talk page, with formal dispute resolution if needed. I recommend that an admin return the article to its previous stable state [270], full-protecting it, and having the editors discuss on article-talk until sourcing and WP:CONSENSUS is reached. Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and the OP mistook ANI for ANEW (look at the formatting). No one's hands are clean. If the OP had actually posted this on ANEW, I would agree that page protection and warnings all around was the solution. But the OP presented diffs of a bunch of edits to different articles whose edits summaries included unacceptable personal attacks and a clear misunderstanding of the nature of our blocking policy. Throwing other users' block logs in their faces is uncivil and despicable. Using other users' block logs as an excuse to revert their edits is worse still. Using other users' having been blocked for edit-warring as an excuse for edit-warring with them is just plain ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Softlavender: I may not have been clear enough with the above. I think you have misunderstood the OP's post (through no fault of your own, mind you -- it was not formatted well). When you say "the article", it is not at first clear which of the three separate articles you are referring to. It is also clear you have not looked at the other diff I dug up of Niele saying that only users on the other "side" should be blocked for edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way: "I am reverting your edit because you have been blocked for edit-warring" seems to be this month's "theme" on ANI. Over the course of December 1, I commented in four threads, basically at random, and of those two of them involved someone doing just this.[271][272] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he mistook ANI for ANEW. He simply used the format used at ANEW to report a behavioral issue (edit summaries he didn't like) at ANI. The problem is, he's going to run into a WP:BOOMERANG here because he is the one engaging in nationality-warring, ethnicity-warring, and disruptive-editing against longterm status quo without talk-page discussion, consensus, or citations. In my view, the edit-summaries are pretty accurate except for the word "vandalism"; none of them actually specifically call the other editor racist (although one says "racism motivated" and one says "racism inspired", neither of which should occur in edit-summaries), and the first one only calls the Turkish laws that banned the letter "Q" racist. Softlavender (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I just am not seeing it. Yeah, he comes across as a nationalist, but so do his opponents. Turkish nationalism is not, in my view, as reprehensible and automatically ban-worthy as some of the other overt racism we've seen on this noticeboard over the last few months. Don't get me wrong: it's not a good ideology. But it is only as much out-of-line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy as Kurdish nationalism, Armenian nationalism and Arab nationalism. And as far as I am concerned, when it comes to edit-warring the edit-warring itself (for which he has already been blocked) is less of a concern than his opponents' constantly trying to paint the block as his edits being condemned by the admin corps on content and using it as an excuse to revert his edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW (missed this): regarding none of them actually specifically call the other editor racist, the edit summaries you refer to in the following parentheses are pretty difficult to interpret as not calling the OP racist, and the other diff I dug up describes the OP as being known for vandalism based on hate toward other ethnicity in a bogus unblock request on behalf of someone who was blocked for violating his own unblock conditions, because apparently an exception should be applied for when one is edit-warring with someone who is known for vandalism based on hate toward other ethnicity. That sqid, I would not be opposed to a block or other sanction of Beshogur for any actual edit-warring or POV-pushing he has been doing in addition to a short block of Niele so he stops trying to game the system by undoing others' edits and arguing in favour of edit-warring with those editors solely based on their block logs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ferakp, it has nothing to do with me. "Qabasin is a Kurdish town" was just based on self reports. I just changed it to "a Syrian town" because it has not any reliable sources. Even the sources you added were based on Twitter reports. Beshogur (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

"with the by anti-Kurdish racist laws in Turkey banned letter Q"

-> I called a law racist, not a person = No personal attack

"Undid racism-motivated vandalism of currently blocked kurdophobic and armenophobic user"

--> I'm calling 'actions' racism-motivated, not a person = no personal attack. Offcourse I'm morally implied to detect racism motivated edits against minorities. This should not have a place on wikipedia.

"Undoing a rasism-inspired edit".

-->I'm calling 'actions' racism-motivated, not a person = no personal attack. Offcourse I'm morally implied to detect racism motivated edits against minorities. This should not have a place on wikipedia.

Please take look at the edit-history of user Beshogur https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Beshogur&offset=&limit=5000&target=Beshogur

Everyone can look at User:Beshogur edit history and see this user is dedicating the last year of his live to target info over the minorities that are standing in the way of his pan-Turkish/neo-Ottoman ideals. You can spare a huge amount of decent Wikipedia users valuable time by blocking him indefinitely. Because after multiple blocks and dozens of warnings he will not learn to stop edit warring and he is damaging Wikipedia with his behavior. I'm distressed by so much hate from this user toward other etnicities and minorities and action should be taken ban in from wikipedia because this kind of 'hate-accounts', targeting of other etnicities should not be tolerated. It is important to detect this 'hate-phenomenon' and report it. He seems not learning out it and just keeps going on, trying to attack/block all decent wikipedia-users that stands in his way. (He already managed to block 2 wikipedia-users in the past 2 days because they where carefully when reverting someone making problematic edits)--Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No one here wants to help either you or Beshogur with your content dispute. Please refrain from making personal attacks in edit summaries, and please read over WP:BLOCK before mentioning other users' block logs in the future. If you cannot do this, you should not be editing Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

He didn't mention anyone's "block log" (he called the editor "currently blocked"), nor is there any restriction on mentioning other editors' block logs (it's fairly common to do so when there are major infractions requiring administrative intervention) or the fact that they are blocked, although mentioning it about an otherwise longterm editor who is merely on a 24-hour block for edit-warring (as opposed to a blocked vandal or site-banned editor) is not advisable. Softlavender (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: He didn't mention anyone's "block log" Please read others' comments before responding. This is my third time posting this diff. this [Arbitration Enforcement block] is an immense mistake and highly disproportionate [...] Pbfreespace just reverted edits of user Beshogur, that was just last week blocked for edit warring is unacceptable IDHT, KETTLE and UNCIVIL. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

He didn't use the term "block log", and that's only the second time you've posted that diff, and you didn't previously post it in conjunction with the term "block log" when you first posted it: [273]. There's also no restriction on mentioning other editor's blocks when discussing their problematic behavior. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

He didn't use the term "block log" I didn't say he used the term. I said he was repeatedly bringing up the OP's block log. You don't need to say "block log" to talk about someone's block log, as is evidenced by the fact that he did. that's only the second time you've posted that diff You are right, and that was apparently only the second time I posted that diff. I don't remember what exactly happened, but it's possible that I abandoned a draft comment that included it, or that this comment originally included the diff, or that I had misremembered it thus. Either way, I apologize for the mistake. you didn't previously post it in conjunction with the term "block log" when you first posted it Again, you are nitpicking the words I used. I was talking about throwing someone's block log in their face as an excuse to be allowed edit war and violate editing restrictions. My not having used the words "block log" is irrelevant. There's also no restriction on mentioning other editor's blocks when discussing their problematic behavior Yes, and? Edit summaries are not the place to discuss someone's problematic behaviour. In the context of the diff in question, he was not even supposed to be discussing the OP's problematic behaviour -- he was requesting that an exception be made to someone else's 1RR restriction/final-warning in the case of edit-warring with this one user because that user happens to have also been blocked for edit-warring. And, again, reverting someone's edits because they are currently blocked, or were at one point in the past blocked, for edit-warring shows a hilarious lack of self-awareness on Niele's part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Calling a law racist? Hahaha so much fun. Since when became laws "racist", as far I know, Turkey is a secular, democratic country. Beshogur (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Everyone can look at User:Beshogur edit history and see this user is dedicating the last year of his live to target info over the minorities that are standing in the way of his pan-Turkish/neo-Ottoman ideals." Niele~enwiki, I do agree that Beshogur's edits on Kurdish tribes and Qabasin (articles which have already been mentioned here) amount to that, but in terms of the rest of his edits, no one on ANI wants to sift through a year's worth of a user's edits to find other examples. If you would like to submit more examples, in the form of WP:DIFFs, feel free. Softlavender (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Another recent example: [274]. User Beshogur deleted the Armenian name of the town claiming that a simiar issue had been discussed on Talk:Erzurum as if on this page some solution or consensus had been reached to delete Armenian names in similar cases. In reality on Talk:Erzurum several users said that the Armenian name should be kept because of the towns Armenian history before the Armenian genocide. If this were some isolated incident I wouldn't care but in the case of user Beshogur this is part of a systematic campaign to delete information about Armenian, Kurdish, ... people on wikipedia. This is just one more example of why user Beshogur is under discussion on "User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Niele~enwiki, it does appear (as Darth Mike mentioned above) that you my have edited logged out to perpetuate an edit-war, using the same edit summaries, on the two articles already mentioned here: Special:Contributions/2003:77:4F1B:5796:81B5:DA58:A387:AECC, and probably also here: Special:Contributions/2003:77:4F5E:9768:A5E8:6AAD:EC76:3314. Oshwah, could you give the user a formal warning on their talk page against doing that in the future, if it seems like this was the registered account evading detection? Softlavender (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC); edited 15:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Also this one. Beshogur (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

1) I did the edits mentioned above with IP 2003:77:.... To clarify: I'm not Niele, I do not know Niele and I'm not in contact with Niele. I've been doing minor edits here and there as an IP user without having an account. By chance I ran into some anti-Kurdish vandalism by the user Beshogur and found that he is doing it systematically. I have now observed his destructive and malicious behaviour for a while by following his activity. Wikipedia should have the technical tools to separate my activities from Niele's activities. (I prefer to remain anonymous in order not to come under attack by Turkish nationalists.)

2) Though Beshogur is sometimes doing some constructive work in articles concerning Turkish history he systematically erases and distorts information about Kurdish, Armenian and Yazidi people. While I agree that comments like "racism-motivated vandalism" should be avoided, I have to say that that often exactly describes what Beshogur is doing.

3) On the discussion page "User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )" there is a list of some 20 examples (as Beshogur pointed out there, in maybe 5 cases he is right, but the other cases are examples of a behaviour exactly as Niele described). If one would go deeper into his edit history I'm sure one could collect 100s of such examples.

4) I find it strange that a user who calls other users "Bunch of idi...s. Beshogur (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)" on User_talk:Niele~enwiki#Stop_calling_me_racist complains about users who call some of his actions "racism-motivated" if they clearly seem to be racism-motivated.

I think the behaviour of User:Beshogur should not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Since I was tagged to this conversation, I would like to add some things. I have to admit that some edits of Beshogur have been nationalistic and he has practiced cherry picking. It's usually difficult to make him understand that there is a talk page and reliable sources are needed to confirm his edits. That's all what I can say.Ferakp (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Niele:

1. [275] Sockpuppet 1
2. [276] Sockpuppet 2
3. [277] Sockpuppet 3
4. [278] Sockpuppet 4

Beshogur (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

As explained above I did the edits with IP 2003:77:.... and I'm not Niele. Beshogur should stop making false accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear IP-hopper: Even though you geolocate to a country that is contiguous to where Niele~enwiki purportedly lives according to his userpage (last edited in 2010), you are engaging in the exact same behaviors as Niele~enwiki, with even the exact same edit summaries. Therefore, you give every appearance of being him. I therefore suggest that you either register an account, or stop targeting Beshogur's edits. Otherwise, I personally believe that you may face sanctions, per our WP:DUCK and WP:TAGTEAM guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

New day - new IP (but similar, again starting with 2003:77...). There is no contact or coordination with Niele whatsoever. I just saw a comment "racism-motivated vandalism" and used it as well because to me it seemed that this exactly describes what Beshogur is doing. Recently I haven't been using this term, instead writing "anti-Kurdish vandalism" or "anti-Armenian vandalism" which is more neutral but still raises awareness of what Beshogur is doing. I'm not an experienced user - please let me know which other methods are available to stop a user like Beshogur from systematically deleting content about certain groups of people. With an account there is still the problem that one user could operate several accounts, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:D49E:9A3B:219F:FF9C (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Again new day - again new IP (but again similar 2003:77...). Let me add that I am still learning how to use wikipedia. In the last few days and weeks I learned a lot thanks to Niele and Beshogur: I learned from Niele how to confront problematic users like Beshogur and from Beshogur I quickly learned all the essentials (and some dirty tricks) of the art of edit warfare. So it's natural that my way to deal with the user Beshogur sometimes resembles Niele whereas my way to conduct edit wars probably resembles Beshogur.

Let me rephrase my question from yesterday: what methods are available on wikipedia to stop a user like Beshogur from making his problematic edits without going to edit war everytime? What is the recommended way of proceeding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F50:9375:D183:6754:142:AF02 (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not have sock-puppets and I never used a other account than User:Niele~enwiki and User:Niele (originating from automated multi-languages transfer). Niele is my frontname, and I'm highly valualing always using always my own real name in wikipedia. Can someone please investigate these IP-accounts and prove that this isn't me; so these baseless claims can be burried. I'm working only from a normal home-cable-account from Belgium's Telenet internet provider from the village of Alken, Belgium. Not from other locations and I don't even have a cellphone or laptop to surf from other locations.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Also sorry if you're not the IP users but I'm tired about that. Beshogur (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Range block needed - LTA IP editor who reverts Eik Corell

The LTA IP editor who goes around reverting Eik Corell has been active this week on multiple IPs. They seem to be able to change it and come back within 12 hours of each block.

IPs used this week so far: 86.187.162.39 86.187.166.1 86.187.165.193 86.187.169.241

Three of the recent past discussions: here, here and here.

Thanks. -- ferret (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Which LTA is this, if you do not mind me asking? I cannot think who it is; I cannot see them at WP:LTA. Patient Zero^talk 13:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I've used LTA as a general term, as this has been going on for two years or longer to my knowledge. It is not a listed LTA case. -- ferret (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, easily done Ferret. Do not worry! I can see why one would class the IP as an LTA in the same way one might class the UK referendum user (long name; remember him?) as an LTA. Perhaps "troll" would be more appropriate, I guess. Patient Zero^talk 13:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User now editing as 86.187.175.73. They changed their IP within an hour of last block. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI: An edit-filter was implemented to counter these edits. More recent activity of theirs here. AccountForANI (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The IP may be partially aware of this, as I noted variation of the "rv v" edit note being used. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

New IP, 86.187.170.193 -- ferret (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought we had an edit filter for this. I'll ping our resident edit filter experts that I think were handling this edit filter. @Samtar:, @MusikAnimal: --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

MA was the brains behind the filter, but I can see they are evading it - I'll have a look at the IPs contribs and try to update the filter -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The filter was off. I've turned it back on — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Does it appear to be working? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Haven't seen any activity from these IPs since the last one, at least via my watchlist. Sounds like the edit filter was off, and is now turned back on, so I think we can close this until they pop up again. -- ferret (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The BDSM vandal returns?

185.25.48.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made this edit to the BDSM article; I promptly blocked them, semiprotected the article. Since then, the attack account The Enema (talk · contribs) was created, and 79.152.217.6 (talk · contribs) made an edit "requesting an investigation". All of these edits remind me of the games-playing behavior of the BDSM vandal from a couple of months ago. Could these possibly be related? -- The Anome (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Peeta Singh

Peeta Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Peeta Singh and Filpro: Instead of at a project, I'm bringing the discussion here as my previous attempts to reply to the user by referring to policy has been of no avail. It's the same topic and it has been over a month of disruptive editing, for which the user has received ample warnings on their talk page.

The user's edits seem to be advocating for a Sikh Punjabi nationality (POV pushing) on an array of Punjab and Sikhism-related articles based on blatant WP:OR and WP:FRINGE while actively trying to omit any mentions of India, effectively trying to depict the Punjab as their own idea of a Sikh country on Wikipedia. Amongst others : [279] [280] [281] [282] [283]

The user has been notified several times that they cannot use Wikipedia to expressly state that there is a "Sikh nation" or "Sikh nationality" (on their talk page and Talk:Sikh) but they continuously proceed to make such insertions, especially in categories and BLPs. They persist to intentionally omit any mentions of the word "India/Indian" (terminology that was used in the first sentence of such articles for years) while replacing it with "Punjabi" (after an admin stating that they may not use "Sikh"), claiming it to be an ethnicity but then creating categories that declare it a nationality.

Please see Khanda (Sikh symbol), Portal:Punjab and WP:PANJ where the user is blatantly modelling a Sikh Punjabi nation and declaring the religious symbol of Sikhism to be the "emblem of Panjab". Examples of the Punjab-related templates that they have used religious symbolism on : [284] [285]

The user as also removed mentions of India from Saraiki dialect, expressly declared Gurmukhi to be a "Sikh script" in the first sentence and is now attempting to differentiate the Punjabi language from other Indo-Aryan languages by using the same classification as Persian language and removing sourced content regarding Indian culture's relation to the Punjabi language - calling it a hoax/debatable point - something they are inserting in all of the Punjab-related articles.

Their refusal to follow WP:BRD is also frustrating as they resort to an edit war instead of substantiating their additions and removals on discussion pages at first.[286] [287]

--Salma Mahmoud (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Salma Mahmoud, from day one I have sincerely tried to improve Wikipedia but some people have had a problem. I don't know why, but users associated with a particular country want to hide some information. It maybe because it challenged this new sense of nationhood they're trying to create and promote on Wikipedia.

Where the term "India/Indian" is relevant I have added it myself [288] but the term is not relevant in every Punjabi and Sikh related article. Regarding Salma's accusation of "effectively trying to depict the Punjab as their own idea of a Sikh country on Wikipedia", i'm aware of 4 Punjabs on Wikipedia: Punjab, India, Punjab, Pakistan, Punjab, Pakistan, Panjab, Afghanistan and the Punjab (region). The following Portal:Punjab is for the Punjab region, a non-political region of the Punjabi people or as some assert the Punjabi nation. Reliable sources suggest that the greater Punjab region is the historic homeland of the Sikhs. If the "greater Punjab region" is the historic homeland of the Sikhs, then how does their symbol the Khanda not represent their region? It's like saying the Lion Capital of Ashoka does not represent India because it was originally placed atop the Aśoka pillar at a "religious" Buddhist site in Sarnath.

In one video, Jugraj Singh from Basics of Sikhi, a educational Sikh YouTube channel [289] briefly mentioned that the Khanda is a recent invention created to represent the Punjabi and Sikh people. I was going to email him regarding the source of this fact but didn't when I came across the news that he's been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. I'll add that source in the Khanda article when I come across it.

I don't just go removing everything with the term "India/Indian". I only remove content: if the souce is not reliable, doesn't mention the topic or the link doesn't work. For example, in the Saraiki article [290], I even wrote edit summaries with reasons for my edits. Further, reliable sources clearly suggest that the Gurmukhi alphabet is a Sikh script, then whats the problem? The article was like this with three references [291], now it's got a list of reliable references [292]. Have I done something wrong?

User:Salma Mahmoud, check the sources of the "sourced content regarding Indian culture's relation". [293] There is a reason why I've removed it. You accuse me of advocating and POV pushing (even though i'm adding information from RS) but what are you doing? [294]

Here listen to Gurpreet Ghuggi, this is the person your trying to label an Indian. [295], [296] These are people that have dedicated their lives promoting Punjab, Punjabi and Punjabism.

I'm only trying to improve Wikipedia, and if Salma or anyone else would like to watch me do so, then be my guest. [297]

Peeta Singh (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Peeta Singh has been indefinitely topic banned from Sikh and Punjabi related articles, broadly construed, so I guess this can be closed. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

Professor Hewitt again

It seems that a few things were missed in the previous discussion here: See [298] 50.247.81.99 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Confused what was missed and why any of it relates to ANI anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit: Actually are you saying that there are some sockseditors there that need to be blocked? Because that looks to be the only thing in that discussion that would concern ANI. You could of course simply stop editing rather than coming here to ask us to block you because you're violating a block or banediting inappropriately. It would seem to be the "professional" thing to do, especially suitable if you're trying to show of what you learnt. Nil Einne (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC) edits at 01:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is Hewitt; it's one of his students which IP should have a long-term block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies then. I've modified my response to avoid any unfair aspersions. Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Alteration of subsection-via-redirect links to less maintainable piped ones

I've been reverting and altering some edits by the (relatively inexperienced) user ILikeCycling. To be fair, this user has finally responded to some of my questions, and I'm still assuming good faith, but I'd like some things clarified for both our sakes!

Clarification

ILikeCycling has been converting links via redirects- including {{R to section}}s- into direct links like so. As far as I'm aware, our policy for subsection cases is that linking via the original redirect is preferable.

In one case, they say:-

But surely Driving Home for Christmas (Stacey Solomon version) is never going to have its own page and so it's just preferable to not have a redirect like that otherwise people who are not editors might get confused.

Can I confirm that my response and understanding is correct? If not, it sounds like this would still be horribly counter-productive from a maintenance point of view, even if within the rules. Ubcule (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Broken {{R to section}} redirects - Should users be required to make fixes there rather converting to individual links?

Again, with respect to the "Action This Day (song)" edit; it's noticeable in that case that the subsection link was broken (probably because the section name had changed).

So, from a user point of view- and only in the case of that specific link- ILikeCycling's de-redirected and subsection-piped version is still an improvement because it links correctly. Unfortunately, it's not productive on the large scale and reduces maintainability for the reasons given at WP:NOTBROKEN.

Now obviously, the best solution would be to fix (the subsection link in) the redirect itself- something I encouraged ILikeCycling to do.

But... what I want to know is whether the edit above can actually be treated as actively counter-productive (despite being a short-term/local improvement) since it reduces maintainability, and whether we should be able to ask people to *not* do things this way and say that- if you want to fix such broken links, please do so by fixing the redirect, rather than removing references to it?

Ubcule (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Question reposted at the Village Pump as it's probably appropriate for that and more likely to receive a response there. Ubcule (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Range block for disruptive IP editor who changes sourced content

I've reported this IP to AIV, where I suggested a range block, but it was declined without comment. The range 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00::/64 has repeatedly changed sourced content, added unsourced content, and made other disruptive edits. Examples:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

If you click on the citations, you'll see the changes fail verification. In 2015, Sergecross73 left this message on the talk page of an IP editor on this range. It seems to indicate that this is a well-known editor who is engaging in block evasion, but he didn't include the username, so I don't know who it is. The edits seem to be the same, including the obsession with Sony's name: diff from 2015, diff from 2016. This seems to be the same editor as 2A02:C7D:564B:D300::/64, though that range hasn't been used since earlier this month. There's another range, 2a02:c7d:75d7:9300::/64, which was range blocked by Zzuuzz for a year on 11 September 2016 for block evasion by Callump90. The ISP is the same, but the edits don't quite match up perfectly. The 9300 IP's edits show an obsession with the BBC that doesn't seem to exist on the other ranges I've listed here. Maybe someone knows more than I do, though. Sorry for the pings, but I'd really like to get this resolved. Reporting it to AIV doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything, and I don't have enough confidence that it's Callump90 to bring it to SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The AIV report was not declined, it was simply wholesale removed, by Widr [299], along with three reports that had actually been responded to by admins. Widr, can you please explain your action (I'm guessing it was an oversight)? NinjaRobotPirate's report had even been endorsed by a third party [300]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have been an oversight, yes. On the other hand, at the time the report had been sitting there for several hours without any admin touching it, making it more or less stale. ANI is usually a better venue for reports that can't be or aren't actioned withing minutes. Widr (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• In regards to the part I was pinged about - yes, throughout 2015/early 2016, I blocked a large number of IPs by someone who also used a few user names containing the words "Zachary" and "Atlus" in them, so that's what we'd usually usually refer to him as, though he more frequently edited anonymously. He would make tons of minor changes to article that upon spot checking, had a high percentage of being wrong. (Fundamental stuff, like saying Nintendo published Disney video games and the like - undeniably not true.) Any attempts to talk to him about this usually lead to silence, with the occasional outburst of saying "Screw you, Serge!" as the dif above shows - never actually addressing any concerns or defending any actions. So we moved to blocking and reverting on-sight. Eventually, I had someone do some range blocks on him (I'm still struggle with them personally) and he seemed to go away for a bit, but if this is indeed him, then I fully encourage further blocks/range blocks. Huge WP:COMPETENCE issue. There was literally no getting through to him, and he refused to stop. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just recalled one of his original user names - AtlusZachary, where he (inexplicably) lists a ton of his interests on his talk page after I blocked him. They were in fact a lot of places where he'd cause trouble too, and as you can see, he did obsess over tweaking television related articles like BBC and NBC. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• The more I look into it, the more it seems to be Zachary. I saw the IP reported above making the same edits as the IP 31.52.4.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was more blatantly acting like Zachary, including getting blocked for bad edits and page moves, and having outbursts on his talk page. I'm blocking the IP for now, as he's still making edits today, but please consider implementing a range block too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It is AtlusZachary. He's largely kept away from video game articles as of late so I've ignored him, but he's still adding unsourced garbage and incorrect information to articles after nearly 2 years. He was already range blocked once (or maybe twice) before, and he should be range blocked again. He's very persistent, I've reported well over 100 of his IP addresses in the past for blocks. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I trust 1337gamer's opinion on this too. He has reported Zachary to me an endless number of times, and he's been right about 100% of the time. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on AtlusZachary. 86.131.221.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be the latest IP used. Notice the same obsession with Sony's name ([301], [302]) and addition of unsourced film studios ([303], [304]). I think 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00::/64 still needs to be range blocked, but we'll probably be playing Whac-A-Mole on other ranges for a while, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I too hope someone does a range block, but feel free to report any IPs you expect to be him on my talk page, and I'll take care of it. I've been doing it off and on for months so I don't mind. Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Ronald Cutburth

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

---

Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), (who in the real world is somewhat well known for pushing the theory that the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were destroyed through controlled demolition by pre-positioned devices and for falsely implying that Lawrence Livermore National Lab supports his conspiracy theories) has been disrupting the Electromagnetic pulse and Nuclear electromagnetic pulse articles with unsourced claims and quite a bit of self promotion. Several editors have tried to reason with him, but he will not listen. Could someone please look into this situation and determine if admin action is appropriate? It may be that a warning will be enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The main noise this time round has been at Talk:Electromagnetic pulse#Electromagnetic pulse page errors, where some lengthy posts of his - in exactly the same vein - have been deleted. He is unqualified in electromagnetics (his PhD was on a different topic) and, as I do have some qualification, I can state categorically that his thesis is utter nonsense. In the past he caused trouble on his own user page and it had to be deleted. He is clearly "not here", not listening to a word we say or taking any notice of warnings and is trying only to push his PoV through the system any way he can. I'd suggest a block of say 48 hours to see if that gets the message across. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• A moderate amount of WP:NOTHERE and, to be blunt, a generous helping of WP:CIR. Everything you need to know is here [305] and here [306]. Extra points for talking about robotons and siudoscience, plus dragging Kant into the fray. EEng 01:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Aaaand now he is making legal threats.[307] A fine example of the law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a clear threat of legal action there, but I have blocked the account pending OTRS verification of their identity, since the account is associated with a specific named academic. No prejudice against further action if other administrators believe it necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:RAMINDRATELI1

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

---

Frivolous account used for vandalism diff diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 appears to be not here - possible hoax article, calling some religions evil

The following discussion is closed. 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 having problems convincing myself that TaxedEnoughAlready (talk · contribs) is here to build the encyclopedia rather than to put forward a particular viewpoint. Ok, maybe there is a Scott Bryson, Jr. (already speedy deleted once) although I doubt it, and virtually all of their edits are unsourced and these are mainly to BLPs. This one was simply vandalism. This one is more than simple vandalism given the added text " Different from evil Catholic,LDS and islam established by him never lead to death of innocent people." Doug Weller talk 12:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The two you link are enough for me to not care whether it's WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE that applies. Further investigation leaves me unable to tell which one applies, but in either case it's not good. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the rest of their edits other than Scott Bryson. That was an obvious hoax. There is no way someone can accumulate $8.52B and not be noticed by Forbes. That along with the other edits is enough to support the block by Ian. - GB fan 13:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Frivolous speedy tagging by User:Mission Kashmir III

Mission Kashmir III (talk · contribs) is dropping bad-faith speedy tags that amount to vandalism. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted many of this user's recent edits involving adding CSD tags to articles. They all seem to be using inappropriate criteria. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 14:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have told the user not to make any more speedy nominations until they have read and understood WP:CSD, and warned that they may be blocked if they do. I will keep an eye on them. JohnCD (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• This user has been permanently blocked in Commons. I think that he should also be permanently blocked here. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Rrburke: have you notified Mission Kashmir III of this ANI report according to procedure? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have in fact. The user has been blanking his talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted their blanking of their talk page. Talk page warnings should not be removed without acknowledging them. Pokéfan95 (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You can take blanking as a sign of acknowledgement, see WP:BLANKING. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, this user is just a vandal (and this is why has been blocked in Commons). I can't believe how can be too permisive in the English Wikipedia. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks, incivility Crovata

The following discussion is closed. 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 users mentioned, persisiting continous incivility and personal attacks. There is an other discussion about his recurring and continous edit warring in the WP:ANEW, and despite the incidents he is still continouing reverting and edit warring, and on the talk pages the uncivil manifestations, and explaining out everything and reflectinghis behavior to other's, now he spot me but he also did it with other users including the discussion, because more users do not share or support his point of view.

Some warning of mine (other warnings to be found in the relevant talk pages by other users):

DIFF1: [308]

DIFF2: [309]

DIFF3: [310]

DIFF4: [311] (in front of the other noticeboard!)

The recurring incivilities and false accusations about "lying":

DIFF1: [312]

DIFF2: [313]

DIFF3: [314]

Immediate action is needed, such acts in front of the noticeborads and continous ignorance of Wiki rules went by far.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

As you can see there was no personal attack. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Edit warring, continous breaking of WP:BRD and WP:Consensus on the page Blacorum and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Crovata and User:123Steller reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: ), as well Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Blacorum and related discussion pages.--Crovata (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry they will check everything, there is already much on your shoulders, and you still continuing.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

That's why I don't worry.--Crovata (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You have to since you again harmed civility: DIFF4: [315] as moreover you are defamating and ignore information and aswers - also to this -. Moreover, I inform the Administrators that Crovata again reverted the notification, litarally regarding the ANI Incidents, such behavior is again a serious issue: ([316]), urgent action needed.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

I did not, he is twisting the facts to defame me, and although noted KIENGIR still shows that he is not familiar with Wikipedia policy and never read WP:USER and WP:BLANKING.--Crovata (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are "innocent" as always, referring on several Wiki policies althugh you harmed continously a bunch of rules is not an option, this does not change the fact that you again committed uncivility ([317]), you just can't stop.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

I dealt with the AN3 report by blocking Crovata for two months – he has a long block log for edit warring, and he reverted more than three times just after the AN3 report was filed. I don't like to block people while an ANI discussion is ongoing but Crovata clearly stated his intent to continue. Note that if another administrator wants to extend the block for these incivility issues, I have no objection. Katie^talk 15:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Section blanking despite requests to stop.

BOTFIGHTER (talk · contribs) has been section blanking Grand Theft Auto repeatedly and without any rationale, despite being asked to stop. He continued (almost seamlessly) where 2405:204:d:ac9c:dc8d:dddc:2c1:a43e (talk · contribs) left off. Can an admin please take appropriate action? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've cross-reported at WP:AN3 before seeing this section. Happy for discussion to continue here if thought to be better. Mike1901 (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Both venues seem appropriate, but there's a question of WP:NOTHERE and or WP:CIR, as far as I'm concerned, given their incoherent responses on the TP, and two editors involved (BOTFIGHTER and the anon). Kleuske (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to block immediately given the fact WP:3RR has been massively overstepped, but given the concerns of WP:CIR I have opted to see if they can explain why they were making these edits first, even if it is as some rope.. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@BOTFIGHTER: They promised, and I'm curious. Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious about the username. Sounds like they're wanting to fight bots, as in ClueBot NG. Which fits in exactly with what they're doing, and makes me wonder if the account was created just for that purpose. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

White A Filly has a point. I coulda sworn having 'bot' in your name is a blockable move. Check the 'Misleading Usernames' section at WP:USERNAME? Pretty sure I saw a few reports sent in by DQBot because they had 'bot' in the username back when Daniel Case ran around there. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 02:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked BOTFIGHTER due to the edit warring at Grand Theft Auto, their username (thanks for the prod there) and a general lack of competence. I'll leave them a note inviting them to still reply to my query on their talk page, as I'd like to hear from them -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)