Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947

User:DLM45's edit requests for Dennis L. Montgomery

The following discussion is closed. 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:DLM45 has been making repetitious edit requests for the semi-protected article for Dennis L. Montgomery; the edit requests start here. The repetitious requests, for the most part, fail the basic requirements for an edit request, i.e., specifying the requested edit ("change X to Y"), a reliable source to justify the request, etc. --Weazie (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Since the user continued despite your protest on their talkpage, Weazie, I have warned them to stop, on pain of blocking, and pointed out that they will be autoconfirmed in a couple of days and thus be able to edit the article themselves. Now why doesn't the prospect of that fill me with joy... oh, yes. The initials of the account, in relation to the name of the subject of the article, worry me. If it's the same person, we'll be obliged to ask them to request editing on the talkpage even after they're autoconfirmed, see WP:AUTO#IFEXIST. Well, let's jump that hurdle when we come to it. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen, thanks for issuing the warning. I (and others) share your concern regarding a conflict of interest. I also have sockpuppet concerns about this account. I fear once this account autoconfirms, it will quickly escalate into an edit war. --Weazie (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I looked at the article history, Weazie, and it's pretty obvious where your sock suspicions lie. Unfortunately the editing done by those accounts is just too old to be CheckUser'd. Never mind; if there's disruption of the article, we don't need to prove sockhood to sanction it. Feel free to report on my page if you think this editor is a problem once they're autoconfirmed. Of course we must also be considerate of the interests of the subject of the article, per WP:BLP. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

User:DLM45 was blocked for being a sockpuppet. Thanks again for the help. --Weazie (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Good work, Weazie. Bishonen | talk 22:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

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

Ethanbas

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

---

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

[1], [2] - Wikipedia:Civility: Incivility and or a threat against another person;

[3], [4], [5] - Wikipedia:Civility: trolling, incivility;

[6], [7] - Wikipedia:Civility: Incivility "Vandal", "doesn't speak English", "Possible paid Russian propagandist". Censorship?

See also Edit warring. TaaniOk (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note Both users blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Ethanbas is heading straight for a site-ban if he continues along this route one step further. He has been serially warned by, for example, Patar knight [8], Bishonen [9], Doug Weller [10], [11], Johnuniq [12], Kudpung [13], [14], and myself [15]; in addition to an astonishing array and number of other warnings on his talk-page [16] for someone who has only been here one year and only made 2,000 edits. Evidently he can't take a hint, or his handlers can't control him. Either way, he is rapidly and determinedly approaching net negative, and his next step will very likely be out the door. Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Beeblebrox might not have been aware of all the other issues surrounding Ethanbas. If I had been aware of this latest issue after already warning him that he was 'within a whisker of being blocked', I would have blocked him for a lot longer. The next time he puts a foot wrong it will be an indeff (from me. at least). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Sigh. I have major issues with some of Ethan's content creation, but had hoped after the last round with Kudpung he would have cleaned up his behavior towards other editors. I would support giving him a final warning letting him know that after this block expires if he sneezes in the wrong direction he can be indeffed without warning. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that this is his last chance. I'll certain block him if he carries on this way, but I think someone who hasn't warned him should do so this time. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Nah, Doug, how about someone who hasn't blocked him doing it now? A lot of admin + experienced user time has already been wasted trying to rein in this user, to no apparent effect. I warned him for serious attacks and threats, and got this response. I don't think we need wait for the 24-hour block to expire and then another 'sneeze'. Per the commentary above, and, as Softlavender says, all the warnings on the user's page, it's time for an indef. I've done the deed. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC).
• Thanks. Probably the best solution. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• For the record, I didn't look deeply into this user's behavior but I did see a lot of other problems recorded on their talk page and their behavior was obviously indicative of someone who is either unwilling or unable to follow best practices here. Thee edit warring was so obvious, and so obviously needed to stop, that I just blocked both to accomplish that, but I'm fine with this too as this was obviously the direction the user was heading anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Indef block revoked. Yes, it's obviously what he's heading for, but when I placed the block notice, I realized that Ethanbas hadn't been alerted to this thread at all. Probably because both he and the OP were blocked for 24 hours by Beeblebrox a few minutes later. That's not an ideal situation, so I've undone the indef. Could somebody give him a really strong warning instead, please? Bishonen | talk 20:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

Yeah, I guess in light of that you didn't have much choice. These two users were reporting each other in so many different places that proper notification of this particular thread seem to have got lost in the shuffle. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender, Kudpung, TonyBallioni, Doug Weller, Bishonen, Beeblebrox: I will not be engaging in anymore disruptive editing. Ethanbas ^(talk) 01:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• OK, if he's not going to be indeffed at the moment, can someone please place a strongly worded Final warning on his talk page? That final warning should include any sort of B.S. on his part, including but not restricted to: incivility; personal attacks; aspersions; edit-warring; disruptive editing; creating short or unreferenced stubs; arguing with admins or experienced users; and templating editors. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Well, I think this edit just now, following his statement above, is classic B.S.: posting a non-existent (redlink) article in his "Articles I've created" list. Evidently he just can't help himself from trolling. Kudpung, TonyBallioni, Doug Weller, Bishonen, Beeblebrox? -- Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Blackstache continues to add link to a site that ignores copyright of proper copyright holders on the Lichfield Gospels 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.

---

Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC BY-SA or open-source content.

I have tried to talk through issues of this site with Blackstache, but he is not acting as if an objective editor. First, he started by referring to comments on the talk page (of Lichfield Gospels) by PseudoAristarchus. These comments were off subject and ignored Wikipedia policy and guidelines. For instance, PseudoAristarchus claimed that "Wikipedia is not a courtroom" and Lichfield Cathedral could take the issue up in one if they didn't like the site. The whole post is rather bizarre and aggressive and significantly ignores Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Blackstache appears to have gone through all of the training modules. Therefore, it is odd that he would refer to these off-subject comments by PseudoAristarchus as reliable evidence. Furthermore, Blackstache has only added this one link in the 8 months that he has been an editor. If I remember correctly, PseudoAristarchus has only added this link and information to the Lichfield Gospels page that contradicts linked and reliable sources.

On the Talk page, I have directed the conversation to Wikipedia policy and guidelines about copyright and contributory copyright infringement. Blackstache, however, claims that external links have a "lower bar." I've quoted and linked to Wikipedia policy and guidelines about copyright and external links, quoting the copyright section. He has not responded.

Furthermore, Blackstache will not respond to the contract that I link to between the University of Kentucky and Lichfield Cathedral. It grants Creative Commons licensing for the images from the digitisation of "the manuscripts." It makes no mention of secondary materials. The link that Blackstache put up and that I took down goes to these secondary materials and erroneously claims CC rights. The contract can be found at http://amphoreus.hpcc.uh.edu/lichfield/Chad/Chad_1962. I took a screenshot of it. I can supply them if it is helpful

Ignoring this posted contract, Blackstache countered with Readme files. These Readme files are written by someone named Blackwell (not listed in the Chronicle of Higher Education article and not listed as part of the imaging team for the Lichfield project). The files claim the copyright holder of these past images is Lichfield Cathedral. However, research shows that this is not true. For instance, copyright for the 1962 images is held by the Courtauld Institute of Art.

Blackstache is not operating like an objective editor. She or he has not responded to the evidence and link I presented for the contract. He or she quickly reported me on this board. She or he ignores or tries to rewrite Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In eight months, his or her only attempt at editing is to add this one link. I appreciate you taking a look at this editor. Wilshire01 (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Wilshire01, this noticeboard is not for content disputes, which is what you complaint really is even though you don't realize it. Please take the problem issues to the dispute resolution board, or request a third opinion or mediation. Both of you are brand-new editors with less than 200 edits and need guidance. Also note that if you continue to post walls of text (as you have here and on the article's talk page), no one is going to pay attention to you.

Lastly, if you ever have actual cause to make a filing here at ANI, you need to provide WP:DIFFs of evidence instead of walls of text; you need to link the names of the editor(s) and article(s) you are talking about, and you need to notify any editors you are reporting, on their talk page, about the report (see the notice in read at the top of this page). Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• By the way, Drmies, could you take a look at the article in question, keep an eye on it, and restrain the edit-warring? (I see you have edited it in the past.) Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Questionable blocks by Fram

The following discussion is closed. 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 concerned that Fram (talk · contribs) has recently blocked Cassianto (talk · contribs) and Singora (talk · contribs) for a month each for incivility and personal attacks. While I can't really condone the language used, I think this level of blocking is unwarranted and really does need a community review to determine whether it is appropriate or not. I have previously banged heads with Fram when he felt that telling another editor to "fuck off" was acceptable (and for this reason I have not undertaken the usual first step of a one-to-one conversation on their talk page), so I am going to stay out of the debate and request everyone else makes a decision. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't followed the Cassianto situation, so I can't judge whether the 1 month block was appropriate. But regarding Singora, it's hard to criticise it when this is the response. Reyk _YO! 10:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• I am not sure given Cassianto and Singora's individual block history (not history with each other) how you could justify less than 1 month at this point for either. Cassianto was blocked for a week only in January for personal attacks (which was lifted by Ritchie after 2 days) and Singora was block in September for a week for personal attacks, with previous month-long blocks. Escalating blocks for repeat behaviour are standard. If this was a first offence this would be overkill. At this stage if anything 1 month is being leniant. If admins keep ending blocks for incivility/personal attacks early its no suprise repeat offenders keep offending. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block of Singora only, Cassianto's block should have been rescinded or commuted to a much shorter one at the very least for reasons repeatedly noted on Cass' own talk page. Singora, however, summarily earned their 1 month block for gravedancing on Cassianto's talkpage. I really think that Fram's block of Singora was more of a "you can have one as well for being [insert descriptor here], of equal duration too" rather than simply "you're being uncivil, 1 month block". I.e., 1 month was not an arbitrary decision, it was very much calculated I think. I could be wrong though. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the time to request a block review of the Cassianto block was 3.5 weeks ago, when it was merited. Instead, people just whined and sniped at Fram either on Cassianto's TP or Fram's TP. In terms of the grave-dancing block, I don't really have an opinion, since grave-dancing is pretty low and the response to the block was utterly vulgar. I don't know that this thread is going to get much traction, since Cassianto has retired (which he has done in the past) and that block was, as I said, 3.5 weeks ago and nobody requested a block review even though many claimed to object to it (and objected to the length of it). Softlavender (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse both per reason given and the gravedancing mentioned above. Also agree with Softlavender: way too late. Kleuske (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block of Singora only and suggest an indefinite ban for consistent personal attacks and his general odious nature.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse both I agree wholeheartedly with Only in death. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse both, for Singora too short imho. Lectonar (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse both. Cassianto has now had twelve separate blocks in just over two years, generally for personal attacks. I'd strongly suggest to Cassianto that the next block would be indefinite; most editors with this history would have already hit the indefinite mark. I'd probably have gone for a shorter block (two weeks) on Singora, but the reaction would most certainly warrant the same warning (next block will be indefinite) to that user, too. Shortening the block now would be a move in the wrong direction. While I am endorsing both blocks, I do think Ritchie333 was justified in raising them for discussion. --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse both actions by Fram per policy. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment Cassianto was blocked for a comment he didn't make, but simply restored. The comment was made by someone else. There was no warning re: the restoration-just the block. We hope (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Without re-litigating, editors are responsible for all their edits, including reverts. Where an editor reinstates material - they are considered to have looked at it and endorsed it. This is the same for content, for edits made by banned/blocked users that are reinstated, for non-content as well as article edits etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this. What you say is true for mainspace content, but not for talk pages. Editors might legitimately restore a reverted edit because they believed the revert to be inappropriate. That does not mean they are somehow now responsible for, or endorse, or in any way approve of the restored content. Paul August ☎ 15:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Editors are responsible for all their edits in all spaces. If an editor reverts an edit that has been removed, they are responsible for replacing the content. If they do not agree with it, they should not be replacing it. If they revert back a BLP violation or personal attack, they are responsible for the personal attack or BLP violating being visible regardless of who orginated it. It may be mitigating circumstances to a newbie, but not for experienced editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So if someone reverted your edit above (say because they disagreed with you) and I restored it, because I didn't think such a revert was appropriate, that would imply that I agreed with what you wrote??? Paul August ☎ 19:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think this would drag out on here long before anyone came to a "consensus" to unblock Cassianto, who's block expires in a few days. The other one might be a bit hard, but I don't know the details, or care that much either. Neither user's block logs shower them with glory though. Maybe both users should have used the unblock request too. Harsh. Smarsh. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that since neither editor requested unblock, but instead either accepted it, replied with a personal attack, or re-retired, and since no one at the time requested a block review of the Cassianto block, this thread is pretty much moot. Especially when by this time it is evident that the filer has some sort of personal issue with the blocker (and vice versa, from what I've seen). Maybe a better thing would be for these two admins to stay out of each other's hair and refrain from commenting on each other's admin actions. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse both. This is especially egregious and singularly disgusting. GAB^gab 16:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...someone blocks you for making personal attacks, so you personally attack them. No way is that ever gonna backfire. TimothyJosephWood 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Imagine if that's how it worked! Drmies (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well this is fun. This by Singora is among the most asinine comments I've seen in a long time (from a "real" editor--not counting trolls and racists), and the talk page comment they made in response to the ANI notification was reason enough for me to revoke talk page access. I do not know if simply revoking talk page access without lengthening the block will increase the size of my tiny penis, but I'll be glad to report back. As for Cassianto, well, they've made such comments before and they've been blocked for it before, but a month is pretty long and I feel bad for them that they had this unseemly gravedancer come by. Fram, would you settle for a "unblock: time served", out of the collective kindness of your heart and mine? After all the blocking we've done on this project, we surely have huge cocks, and nothing left to prove. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm definitely seeing some potential here for Adminship is not a method for penis enlargement. TimothyJosephWood 20:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I would have changed it to an indef block for that remark, as opposed to just revoking the talk page, but I'll defer for now, despite my massive girth. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block of Singora only - They should've been indeffed for their remarks alone. –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse both blocks, recommend ban for Singora. As noted above, it would have been ideal to review Cassianto's block back when it was originally handed down. At any rate, the user has retired, and based on their track record I see no reason for ending the block early. As for Singora, their grave-dancing post was only their third edit of 2017, and it strikes me as rather illogical that they would taunt someone else for repeatedly retiring when they are also not consistently active. That, combined with the juvenile response to Fram's justified block, suggests to me that Singora should be banned as they are no longer here to create an encyclopedia. Lepricavark (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Another talk page legal threat from User:86.24.238.108 ("wikipedia is not allowed to under law to print anything with my name from this moment on and note that is a threat of legal action"), apparently block evasion by User:Palkanetoijala. --McGeddon (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's another "Yeah, whatever" legal threat but it fails WP:NLT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought he was blocked by someone on the helpdesk yesterday? - X201 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Found it - X201 (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Tube challenge right? TBH, I dont know why we just cant remove their name. Its not as if it is vital, given they operated as a partnership it can easily be rephrased as 'So and so and partner'. They are a completely non-notable individual otherwise, they are not a public figure, and essentially their only achivement is being able to run quite fast from tube to tube. While wikipedia does not respond to legal threats (and this person's threats are indeed, laughable) there is nothing preventing us from not publishing someones name who doesnt rate an article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

A couple of years ago this user was trying to cut a strange plea bargain with Wikipedia, demanding that the article include James's (then-unsourced) 2015 fastest time, and that if we didn't, we weren't allowed to mention James's name as a past record holder either. I'm not sure what his reason is now.

I don't think it's ever been confirmed that the person removing the name is actually James; this could be somebody who wants to remove a rival's name from the article. All attempts to contact the user through private email seem to have ended in more legal threats. --McGeddon (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

As regards your rival thought. Having done some quick research into Tube challenge yesterday, it does seem like there's a bit of animosity between some of the parties involved in the challenge. - X201 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME applies here, but Guinness World Records is a reliable source and Wikipedia cannot have a blanket ban on mentioning people who are named in it. If there are concerns, they should be raised without making legal threats.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not just Guinness, there are news reports which name him explicitly *used as sources in the article* so even if we did as a courtesy remove it from the prose, it would still be viewable in the references. I am just pointing out there is nothing really preventing us from doing it. Its really not a big deal. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a blockable legal threat, and the 31 hours may not be long enough, although he's probably an IP-hopper. As to mentioning what he allege to be his name, he should take up his argument with the sources for that name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: Why is he/she making legal threats in the first place? From what I have read he is claiming to be the subject of the content he is named in? Has he been told to email Wikimedia about this issue? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

What, you don't think it makes sense to do a meaningless stunt designed to attract attention, and then sue when it attracts attention? In any event, a block has already been issued fo rblock evasion. It seems clea their legal threats are without merit, if there is some basis that's up to the Foundation lawyers to deal with. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Beeblebrox: Prima facie it looks like it could be frivolous however, I would simply say that however annoying it seems to be the best course would be to tell him to email legal and if he continues with his epilogue then it would be a good reason to block for disruption. By the looks of it, editors have already tried to reason with him but I am not all that sure. Like I said, perhaps he is angry legitimately otherwise he might be a complete troll but sometimes the best way to deal with them is to say “go to legal” if they keep on... ignore then block, that’s how I would approach it at least. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• @Beeblebrox: With this said, the person is operating sockpuppets and disruptively editing the article in question which doesn’t seem like the rationale thing someone would do if they had access to a lawyer and a genuine legal concern. After having noted these I think you are right, seems like it’s a troll really. It’s strange what people do on Wikipedia beeble, and I don’t know half of it but apparently I have just learnt people will do all sorts. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: From what I read of his threat to take legal action he seems to be dismayed that what he claims is his name is being used in an article. I’d think the best way to deal with it is tell him to email [[17]] with his complaint so they can deal with it if need be. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oh, yeah, Andi. He has been threatening to sue Wikipedia for a couple of years now under the claim that he has a "copyright" on his name. It originally started when he repeatedly tried to "publish" an unofficial record to the article, but was reverted by several editors do to verifiability. He has been fuming about it ever since. —Farix (t | c) 03:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Is a longer block justified, or is he an IP-hopper anyway so it wouldn't matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I just extended it to three months about ten minutes ago. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • In the past, he would just hop to a new IP. Not much you can really do beyond WP:RBI. —Farix (t | c) 04:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Reversion of an edit

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

---

I edited Outlook.com the other day, and User:Codename Lisa reverted the whole thing, with the comment

Reverted poor writing. The worst part was bringing an "although" after a "however".

So I put back my version with the comment

If you think my writing is poor, then improve it instead of reverting. But there's nothing wrong with "However, although". "However" introduces a contrast to what came before, and "although" introduces a clause which is slightly contrary to what follows.

Now she has reverted me again, saying

The first time I reverted it, it was good faith blunder. Now, I am reverting deliberate vandalism born of stubbornness.

I would like a third opinion. I think my reply was polite and to the point, and doesn't deserve to be called "deliberate vandalism born of stubbornness". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Eric, it's not for ANI, but it's related to grammar and stuff and I enjoy that, so I'll give you a second opinion: "However, although" is fine. For example, this and this, that's fine writing. However, your "actually" in that last sentence is, hmm, well, not pretty (and almost editorial), and I generally disapprove of "This was because". Codename Lisa, "Now, I am reverting deliberate vandalism born of stubbornness" was completely uncalled for. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for ban of user Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The following discussion is closed. 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 requested for Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to be banned previously and he has been warned but yet continues to edit disruptively. As stated before, he has no regard for facts or citations of verifiable sources. Every time I ask him to provide a source for his edits he replies with "Fake news, very unfair" or "Unfair" without justifying his claims of me posting fake news. As suggested by Wikipedia Administrators, I have complained on this page before and am doing so again, I have tried to discuss it personally with him on his talk page but he has refused to comply and deleted my requests for him to behave in an orderly fashion. I am the only one who is actually willing to discuss this issue as he does not wish to do so. He also shows signs of editing page to suit his liking and shows a tremendous amount of bias when it comes to edits. His talk page too is full of complaints from other users. I further state that he has also removed the warning from Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from his talk page. I say that I have not engaged in edit warring with him as I have been warned not to do so again but he continues to try and undermine all that is good here at Wikipedia. I further state that on the current page we are having a dispute over, List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), I have cited verifiable sources for all my edits like the RIAA and he has failed to do so on multiple occasions and claims that I am posting fake news. I sincerely request that someone look into this situation carefully and have him banned as he is completely and utterly non-compliant with other users and does what he wishes without giving any justification for his actions. Thank You.

Link to his talk page : User talk:Piriczki (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Page we are currently having a dispute over : List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),

Talk page of the page we are having a dispute over : Talk:List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Lord NnNn (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, Piriczki has stated multiple reliable sources on the talk page, and you've ignored him completely and changed the article to an incorrect state through your misunderstanding of the source you used (you used a RIAA link which shows total all time sales of an album, not those for a particular year, 1992 in this case). I've changed the article in line with the reliable sources that Piriczki showed. As well as those claims being incorrect, I don't see his talkpage being "full of complaints" nor any "tremendous amounts of bias" in his edits. In other words, practially all of your complaint is incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User talk page harassment after warning by JordanGero

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

---

Could someone tell JordanGero (talk · contribs) to stay the hell off of my talk page?

After he left a wall of BS text here, he was told, albeit not as clearly as I should have, to stay away. He returned today and left another wall of BS, here. At that point I warned him to stay off of my page, here, so of course he returns with yet more BS here.

Those have been his only edits since May 28, 2016. I don't contribute anymore, but I still get notices from my talk page, and would just as soon not hear from assholes. GregJackP Boomer! 01:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• JordanGero was notified here. GregJackP Boomer! 01:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Warning issued. GregJackP On which note, it is important that everyone remain WP:CIVIL when interacting with one another. This is especially true during disagreements. I note a distinct shortfall in that civility all around in this case. Please consider this a formal caution. Your RETIRED notice does not exempt you from the rules of polite behavior around here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This user (GregJackP) had made racist commentary in a previous discussion between us (here). I am specifically referencing his racist statement "your people tried to exterminate my people" (which is an attempt to stigmatize on the basis of race) and his fallacious accusations of "historical revisionism" (the closest I came to "historical revisionism" was mistaking Lord Amherst, a high-ranking officer in the British Army, for a lieutenant). This form of racism is arguably one of the most noxious examples of the weaponization of victimization, and it is not to be tolerated in civil discourse because of its extremely detrimental effect on race relations and general ethical integrity.

After I spoke to him about this on his talk page, he deleted my comments and called me a moron, claiming that he was "retired". I explained to him that being "retired" does not immunize him from legitimate criticism, and subsequently asked him to cease posting on my own talk page or replying to me on his, and if so, I would no longer communicate with him. Now he opens up this incident report, calling my comments "BS" and continuing to deflect from his sickening racist statements and to rely on the fact that he no longer contributes to Wikipedia (i.e., he is "retired") to immunize him from critique over such statements. This kind of behavior is contrary to numerous policies in effect regarding editing on Wikipedia. There was absolutely no need for this incident report: my last post on his talk page made it clear that I would no longer post on his page, as long as he did not reply to me on my page or on his page. Additionally, though not determinative, his argument that he keeps receiving notices from his talk page is unpersuasive for two reasons: 1) I was only replying to him because he continues to reply to me; and 2) he can easily disable notifications if he likes. Presently, given that this user has not replied to my last post on his talk page, I have no reason to continue a conversation with him, whether on my talk page or his.

More substantively, I formally request an apology from this user for attempting to stigmatize me on the basis of my race (which he does not actually know, but has assumed that I am of European decent) with the statement "your people tried to exterminate my people". Apparently, this user is of Native American descent, and believes that I am of European descent. Not only is the substance of his statement one that is historically contested (I won't get into that here), but it represents a cherry-picking of history and a generalizing of all those of European heritage, regardless if they had any direct or indirect involvement with the conquest of the New World, under that selected and isolated historical banner, which a most disturbing and skewed worldview. I explained to this user that I could have very easily made statements about how "his people" engaged in savage practices of human sacrifice, brutal tribalism, and primitive rituals, spending most of their miserable lives trying to survive, and that he now gets to enjoy the comforts of modern society, including having a lifespan 2-3 times what it used to be and easy access to medical care, mostly due to the technological and social advances that are were largely the product of white people. But I did not and would not make such statements because I am not a racist prick who stigmatizes people on the basis of race by cherry-picking only those historical events that serve my prejudices, only to evaluate them through the lens of modern-day ethics and use such evaluation to override the individuality of people simply because they look one way or the other. I have NO RIGHT to do this, and neither does this user have the RIGHT to stigmatize ME on the basis of MY race, and then not only falsely accuse me of "historical revisionism", but use his status as a minority as a SHIELD to IMMUNIZE HIM from his RACIST STATEMENTS. NOT FUCKING OK.

I repeat: I formally request an apology from this user for attempting to stigmatize me on the basis of my race. Thank you. JordanGero (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not going to happen; that's not how Wikipedia works: apologies cannot be demanded or insisted upon. The comment was 1.5 years ago (and the editor has long since retired from Wikipedia). The other user has been warned, and I will re-warn him: GregJackP, if you make any further comments similar to this [18], your retirement is going to be formalized in a way you probably do not wish it to be. Now, JordanGero, stay off of GregJackP's talkpage as he has requested, or else you will end up blocked from editing. WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop posting walls of text here; move on please. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If it was 1.5 years ago, what even brought it up today? El_C 09:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That, my friend, is a most excellent question, especially since it is a regurgitation of this: [19]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Death threat

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

---

User:Giangkiefer came to my attention at the Teahouse, where another editor warned them about personal attacks. Looking at their recent edit history, I noticed this gem of an edit summary: "‎I created 'Súbeme La Radio', someone move my article and I will kill that person". Please, would an administrator take some firm action here? Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked the user for one week for that generic threat and personal attack. El_C 06:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the righteous block, El C. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

DWRY-FM

The following discussion is closed. 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 probably the wrong forum, but an article DWRY-FM has just been created and I have several recollections in the past of such articles being created by block evading socks of a persistent sock puppeteer. Not being an admin, I don't have ready access to the background, but it would be good if someone with knowledge could give this a once over. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not seeing anything. El_C 11:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Velella and El C: Thanks for reporting Velella. There's a LTA, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101, out there that constantly creates hoax articles on fake Philippine radio stations. Given that all the sources in this article were dead links or led to pages with no mention of DWRY-FM, I've deleted the article and indeffed the creator. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for Admin attention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Russian Bride

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

---

Greetings all, apologies for posting this here - if it's not the appropriate venue then please feel free to direct me to the correct one. Anyway, can an uninvolved Admin please take a look at this AfD discussion? The behaviour of Lyrda (who is apparently an editor with a Conflict of Interest, here solely to promote Kristina Pimenova - a non-notable model/actress) has crossed the line from belligerence to all-out disruption and forum-shopping to push their point of view, burying legitimate comments in the AfD with nebulous, irrelevant, repetitive "I can't hear you"-style walls of text. If someone could hat, or collapse, the stuff that has no policy-based bearing on the discussion - which I'll openly admit may include my grumpy responses - then that may encourage more participants. Notified Lyrda of this discussion here Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

IMHO we have enough participants, with input from the RS Noticeboard added (a user familiar with films, which Exemplo347 is not). What we do need is structure, which the proposer failed to provide and was therefore provided by me. Not a single user, Exemplo347, who keeps repeating the same minority view in every thread and keeps personally attacking the creator of the article. Lyrda (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lyrda: Can you supply evidence of these personal attacks, I'm not seeing anything there. Amortias (T)(C) 12:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I've also collapsed an off topic discussion about the reliability of sources. Changing consensus on what is and isn't a WP:RS inst a discussion for an AFD. Amortias (T)(C) 12:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amortias: It's been uncollapsed (is that a word?) here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You collapsed several people's views, so I undid your edit. Furthermore, the reliability of sources is essential for notability and should therefore be discussed. It is not a vote. Lyrda (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The afd is a discussion on how the article does/doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion as currently set, it shouldn't be a general forum for discussion on if the policy is correct or not, this should be taken to a RFC or discussed at the RS noticeboard. Amortias (T)(C) 13:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Your best bet at this point would be to copy the article to a text file on your PC, so you can restore it intact when (or if) the film in question meets notability standards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a reasonably wide experience of AfD discussions but here's a question that hasn't occurred to me before: is it really appropriate for one participant in a dicussion to summarise the views of other participants? I'm not asking only about this discussion, but from a more general perspective. My own view is that no, it shouldn't be done in an AfD, it's the job of the reviewing administrator to read each participant's arguments as phrased by that person, and any ambiguity has to be interpreted by the admin, not go through an additional layer of interpretation by a third party. Posting to an AfD is (for me) usualy a balance between being too terse and potentially ambiguous, and posting a wall of text that nobody will read. As a result, my posts will always be much more simplified than my actual opinion, and so for somebody else to post a simplification of that post may very well result in something that's not at all representative for what I think. Just my POV of course, and there is nothing in WP:DISCUSSAFD that I can see about paraphrasing other people's views. Am I completely off base? I can understand the wish of anybody with a tidy mind to want to make a tidy summary, I just don't think it actually helps the discussion, especially not if it's done while the discussion is still ongoing... --bonadea contributions talk 12:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I've never seen it done before, and I find it to be particularly disingenuous - it's not as if I don't make my opinions crystal clear, is it? Exemplo347 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) Of course, although I'm aware that it's always subjective. I did not particularly appreciate the comments listed below.

• you're clearly an editor with an undeclared Conflict of Interest
• Clearly the article creator is taking this a bit too personally
• canvassing spotted
• Please be aware that non-neutral canvassing appears to be taking place
• Really though Lyrda, the answer to every question you have asked could have been found quite easily, by reading the links that people have been providing for you.
• putting your fingers in your ears & pretending you don't hear valid objections from experienced editors is a waste of your energy]
• Come on now, be realistic
• Struck this disingenuous summary
• save some time and re-read your own responses to me in your head
• Read through the page again, have fun - I'm not repeating myself again just to get the same "La la la!!! I can't hear you!!" response

There are other concerns regarding this user as well, such as removing current talk from their talkpage.[20][21] Lyrda (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to be summarizing others' views (which is a questionable thing to do) you should at least group them by "Keep" and "Delete" rather than throwing them together. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's not a vote. I prefer a structured approach, where independence, reliability and significance are discussed in that order, before participants give their final judgement. Lyrda (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You should delete that summarization, then. It's redundant and possibly misleading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If anyone feels that I've made personal attacks, speak up now. The edits provided above are pretty routine commentary - I'm particularly confused by the one about canvassing, as Lyrda had made a similar comment about other editors. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Afds

What we have in this deletion discussion is a division between two camps.

1. Users familiar with deletions, quick to arrive, quick to vote but hesitant to elaborate or discuss, impatient.
2. Users familiar with the content (here: films), slow to arrive, prepared to take time, patient, ready to provide arguments for their point of view.

I've since looked at other deletion discussions and it strikes me that most are structured as a vote, i.e. for the convenience of the first group. That is not very helpful to the second group of users. Lyrda (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD as delete. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That deals with the issue, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks NeilN. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how you can conclude that consensus had been formed, but you have the buttons. It certainly doesn't deal with Exemplo347's behaviour, which if left unaddressed is bound to continue. Lyrda (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lyrda: It's easy to avoid that behavior. Don't summarize other editors' views in a discussion you are heavily involved in. If you do, and there are objections, strike or collapse the summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Undoing an inappropriate user page move

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

---

On Feb 15 User:Jorgemataemancipation moved his/her user-page to Wikipedia:Dr. Simon E. Mills, see diff here. Clearly, that move is inappropriate, but I cannot undo it now, since in the meantime the user-page User:Jorgemataemancipation has been made into a redirect to an article space page Dr. Simon E. Mills. I request that an admin clean this up (presumably the redirect needs to be deleted first). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

They'd moved User talk:Jorgemataemancipation rather than User:Jorgemataemancipation to Wikipedia:Dr. Simon E. Mills. I've moved it back and suppressed the redirect. Amortias (T)(C) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Jamesoban Advertisement 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.

---

Notification to other users involved as witnesses: @Boneymau: @Eggishorn: @RHaworth:

Seems to be a promotion only account. Has created several advertisement only articles which are taking people’s time to try and deal with.

• one diff
• two diff
• three diff

Needs a block so advertising content can be speedy deleted without keep going back to AfD and wasting people’s time.

→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 14:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Of their articles created, there are two already deleted as spam and one that is an enlarged version of one of the deleted articles that I've nominated for AfD. Not a good look, I agree. In contrast, their other contributions are mostly small changes to theater articles almost entirely about musical theater in the UK. It looks like the account of somebody that is a theater fan or who works in the UK musical scene. I believe a block is inappropriate at this time, because here's no evidence they have been counseled on article creation. As a project, article creation is an often-bewildering experience for inexperienced editors, and what is considered acceptable and what is not is scattered in manifold different areas. The current AfD article, for example is not a copy vio and appears to be the editor's own, if exhaustive, plot summary. They appear to be trying to re-create an article and address the reasons that was eliminated. Also, they have edited on a total of 7 days spread out over less than a year and a half and last touched the project in July, 2015. This is hardly an active issue that needs swift admin action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

They last edited about twenty days ago. That deleted article also referenced Kouban Productions so we may have something of a COI issue here. I've left a COI message on their talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: You raised good and balanced points above which I will take into my future editing as an experience learnt. You’re right, it can be daunting for new editors to create new articles. The only thing I would personally say about this which gives more weight of being bad faith over good faith edits seems to be this users apparent extended knowledge at the use of tables, templates and such. This provides me a reasonable suspicion that the user knows enough of what he is doing to be able to know that his work is advertising. Furthermore, one of the articles that has been nominated for deletion ages ago was re-created by him recently despite the fact it had previously been deleted from Wikipedia for advertising. With this said, what you mentioned is noted and perhaps I should have been less hasty to request a ban. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Readerofmanga80

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

---

Persistent disruptive unsourced, unexplained edits, ignoring multiple warnings. See Ghost in the Shell (1995 film) and Pink Floyd – The Wall and others. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, 48 hours. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanx, - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Thomas Campbell (Australian politician) - Triptothecottage referral re: copyright investigation

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

---

Hi Admin,

Please refer below discussions re: Triptothecottage referring information provided by me on my gg grandfather for copyright investigation.

Regards,

bwsg70 (aka Brendan Garner)

re: Thomas Campbell (Australian politician)

Hello Triptothecottage,

The edit in question which prompted you to contact me was a hyper link to the town of Westport, Mayo, Ireland being the birthplace of my gg grandmother, Mary Campbell (nee Hanley). Further, re: copyright, if you noticed I provided information to the Qld Parliament in the first instance re: my gg grandfather, Thomas Campbell, and therefore it does not or should not fall within the definition of breach (of Wiki copyright). Accordingly, it would be greatly appreciated if you lift the current status of Thomas's Wiki page (eg. it is blocked or the like).

Thank you. Kind regards,

bwsg70 25/2/2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwsg70 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Bwsg70: Please explain the situation at this page. An administrator will asses the situation from here. Unfortunately, it is often very difficult to tell who the owner of the copyright is. In this case, I have sent it for investigation because it may be the case that only some of the material is copyright. Please ask if you have any more questions. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

   Template:Triptothecottage That's a tad authoritarian, this is my original work, indeed a significant increase on the original brief, which I have, as indicated, provided to the Qld Parliament. There was no need for you to interject in the first instance and send it for investigation if you carried out some basic checks. Very disappointing. I write not merely from a historical standpoint as per my history undergrad from university, but more precisely based on core evidence. Again, very disappointing that you decided to interject without some basic checks and asking. Perhaps this is why you step on toes and thus issues become messy when they don't have to in the first instance. Please revert the page to its initial status.

   Template:Triptothecottage Incidentally, the onus should not be on me to explain myself further via an additional process as instigated by you. Common sense surely must prevail. All the best. Regards, bwsg70 (aka Brendan Garner, that is if you actually wish to check the Qld Parliament link).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwsg70 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 

What would like us to do? Please don't just copy conversations; try to be concise. Are you able to prove that you provided the content to the parliament.qld.gov.au site? El_C 13:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This is straightforward. The content of the article is closely similar to that of the Queensland Parliament biography, and Triptothecottage was absolutely right to blank it and list it at WP:CP. However much we'd like to, we can't simply accept an editor's word for copyright ownership – we have no way of knowing if an editor is the person he/she claims to be, or of knowing for certain whether an editor is telling the truth (unfortunately, not quite everybody always does!). We don't apply "common sense" to apparent copyright violations, we apply our copyright policy.

Bwsg70, all that's needed for this to be resolved and for the article to be restored is for Brendan Garner to email us permission for the text, as explained at WP:CONSENT. Once you've done that, you should receive an automated reply with a long number beginning "2017" – that is your OTRS ticket number. If you post that number on the talk-page of the article, I'll look for your email, process the permission, and restore the article. It shouldn't take more than a few days.

I do see that all this may seem authoritarian or indeed unnecessary. But it's for the protection of authors' copyrights as well as the integrity of Wikipedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

talk Wow, I can see why so many people get frustrated with Wiki...well it isn't really a system...it is a perplexing process with absolutely no common sense. I am unsure how I can confirm or provide proof - my original uni Email account (eg. undergrad) from the time wherein I forwarded 2 briefs is no longer in place - I have since returned to uni for post grad studies and the uni Email system has changed, thus I don't have access to the original Email's, which I forwarded quite some time ago. I am Brendan Garner. I am unsure how to send you an Email. I prepared 2 briefs, one for the Qld Parliament, which they have acknowledged as a footnote on the bottom of their link whilst the second brief was provided to ANU (Australian National University) for their ADB (Australian Dictionary of Biography). My brief has passed both academic tests - Qld Parliament published and ADB is pending. Again, I am unsure how to Email you, however, I am Brendan Garner and give permission to myself to publish this information on Wiki's perplexing process web site. As Triptothecottage indicated "An administrator will asses the situation from here", surely I have provided sufficient information for you to lift the ban, which Triptothecottage put in place. If it assists as I would like this unnecessary alleged copyright issue resolved in a timely manner, I can provide you with my current uni Email address. Bwsg70 Footnote: I have, just now, forwarded an Email from my uni Email account to Wiki's generic Email address and it has been received, Ticket#: 2017022510014681. Unsure where to paste this on the talk section of the article so I have pasted it at the top where Triptothecottage started this whole unnecessary drama. I shouldn't have to go to this extent over an issue such as this. Still perplexed and shaking my head at Wiki. Bwsg70

Sorry, but copyright claims need verification—simply taking someone's word for it is not enough. Hopefully, you are able to demonstrate you are, indeed, the contributor. El_C 05:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• This thread is already about as long as the article itself. The OP can solve this very simply by just paraphrasing his own work. EEng 05:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C I repeat, it is not a copyright claim as I am the author as per my initial brief provided to the Qld Parliament, which again is provided as a reference by them in the link. I can now see why my history lecturers at uni laugh at Wiki and I can't believe what I have had to do to confirm this silly process. Again, Email has been sent as per ref. 2017022510014681 and I await confirmation that Triptothecottage's silly decision is reversed. Bwsg70

@Bwsg70: Please understand that I have no personal issues with you or your work. Yes, the copyright policy is a little tedious and complicated, but it exists to protect the original work of authors such as yourself. It is always better to have these things out in the open than hanging around with lingering suspicion. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brendan. I'll try and make this concise. I'll also put this on your userpage, with some further expansion.
1. Who holds the copyright to the Campbell, Mr Thomas Joseph webpage?
The Parliament of Queensland does. At the bottom left of the web-page is "Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved". Here is that website's copyright notice.
2. Why is there a copyright investigation going on?
Because Wikipedia must not include text that is subject to copyright.

You may perhaps recognise the Shirt58 image on my user page as UQ colours. When I lived in Brisbane, I actually studied at QUT.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Shirt58, Wiki is a joke and again I can only reiterate why professionals such as historians and academics generally are of the view that Wiki is considered inappropriate, particularly research, writing and using it as a reference base. YOU CAN ATTEMPT TO BE AS CONCISE AS YOU WANT, BUT I WROTE THE BRIEF, IT IS MY INFORMATION, IT IS BASED ON MY RESEARCH AND COLLATION OF CORE EVIDENCE OVER THE LAST 5 TO 10 YEARS. WHAT A DISAPPOINTING JOURNEY AND OUTCOME, HOWEVER, I WAS WARNED BY PROFESSIONALS. THE IRONIC TWIST, I FOUND MY ORIGINAL BRIEF SUBMITTED TO THE QLD PARLIAMENT, THE VERSION PUBLISHED ON THEIR WEB SITE IS WORD FOR WORD. Bwsg70 —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bwsg70: An email has been sent to you today with the next steps you need to take - please read it carefully and respond to it. Thank you. -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 11:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Samtar, if you actually read the above trail you would have noted that I have already. I'm a tad over this silly debate. The Administrator will either lift the ban put in place by Triptothecottage or they won't. I'm not interested in any further discussions as I should have listened to my lecturer. Bwsg70

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

New account forum-shopping some kind of I-P complaint

ארינמל (talk · contribs)

As I pointed out here the account is almost certainly in violation of an ArbCom sanction, but do I really need to figure out how to open an AE report on this issue? Does anyone else know how to do it? Or how to warn the account that the General Prohibition exists?

Is it even a technical requirement to report violations of the General Prohibition on AE rather than here? I really don't know, and I've got something of a headache at the moment so I don't have the energy to figure it out for myself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I closed the discussion at RSN, at the very least. Also gave the user a DS/alert. El_C 10:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like the right move. And thank you for notifying the account of the ARBPIA sanctions as well. I think we might be done here, unless the account does something stupid. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what violation I've committed. Validating the reliability of said data is certainly relevant to the purpose of Wikipedia, and I was in line with the standards of behavior and the policies as far as I can tell. Kind regards --ארינמל (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@ארינמל: I sympathize. Arbitration Committee sanctions can sometimes be somewhat impenetrable, which is why my own commeng above was so confused. Put simply, accounts with less than 500 edits and less than a month since their first edit are not allowed make any edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict except on article talk pages. Your first edit, therefore, was acceptable, but posting the same thing on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was not. At least as far as I understand it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking for broader community input

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
There has been a recent discussion on my talk page which I would appreciate if you could go take a look at (User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi#Second eye..) for the full picture. But in summary, we have User:MilenaGlebova1989 who has created 154 short articles on individual Yoga positions (or 'asanas'). Winged Blades of Godric and Cyphoidbomb are doubtful they are notable, are poorly sourced- mostly WP:PRIMARY- and ought to be redirected to our List of asanas article. There being so many qualifies them, I suggest, for this single, centralised discussion to take place.
So in the interest of wider discussion, in appreciation of the benefits that 'the intervention of administrators and experienced editors' can bring (and hoping someone will know of a means of mass-redirecting if that is indeed the conclusion), here we are. No particular administrative action is requested- except, again, if there are tools available to redirect en masse- although it is probably worth noting that if this had been replied to, something could have been worked out earlier and we may not have to be here now. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect - As I noted on Fortuna's talk page, if this were a single article, I would have redirected to the List of asanas article on the basis that independent notability had not been properly established, but given that we're talking about 154 or so cookie-cutter stubs, it seems a massive undertaking to perform without discussion--and frankly, without help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect--As the iniator of the discussion, I find zero-notability in these standgalone stubs and propose an en-masse redirect to List of asanas. Winged Blades ^Godric 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: These articles contain images with promotional watermarks[22] that were originally published under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0). If I understand correctly we cannot (yet) re-license them under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Creative commons says: "The 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike allows contributions to be licensed under under a “Creative Commons Compatible License,” defined to mean licenses approved by CC as essentially equivalent to the 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike license. To date, CC has not approved any other licenses as compatible. However, CC will develop a compatibility process shortly following launch of the 4.0 licenses."[23] Also see:[24]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect, absolutely. Having spot checked a dozen of the articles I didn't find a single one that did more than mention the name of the pose, as well as some WP:NOTHOWTO violating advice and a list of titles (with amazon.com links for refs) of books that describe it - no indication of notability, and the articles look like spam magnets for various publications that mention them. It may even be the case that they were created in order to name-drop the author of the book and website that the images were taken from, given that all the images appear to have the same source - the same user has created articles about both the author and the book, in addition to all the asanas. (If so, we should be grateful that there are only 154 articles, given that the book apparently lists more than 2000 of them...) --bonadea contributions talk 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good note about the spam potential, Bonadea. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much Bonadea: does this kind of thing increase google hits, or something, d'you think? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 07:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is likely that some SEO people believe that it does, anyway - I have very little idea of how google's rankings work, but spamming the name of a person or product to various pages is something I see happen occasionally. That's not a reason in itself to delete the pages I guess, but it makes my spam spider senses go all tingly... --bonadea contributions talk 21:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yo, Cyphoidbomb... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This is very clearly a content issue, not a behavioural one, even down to the manner in which the OP has formulated the matter here. While I think it is advisable to seek outside perspectives, unless there is an implication of an underlying behavioural problem (and Fortuna has made no indication of such here), then this is just not the forum for this. I'd suggest WP:RfC, WP:VPP, WP:CD, and possibly WP:AfD (or some combination thereof) as potential appropriate forums for holding a straw poll or otherwise soliciting perspectives on the content. If the implication of this discussion were that MilenaGlebova1989 is likely to deviate from consensus on this matter, or otherwise behave disruptively, that's another matter, but Fortuna has explicitly stated that no particular administrative action is being sought. If it's just a matter of getting someone with more expansive tools to do the redirects en masse, that can be accomplished by making that request at AN (or of an admin directly) after a consensus on the content issue is reached at an appropriate forum, but ANI is not the place to host a content strawpoll itself. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The OP ws posting on behalf of others, including an aministrator. In fact, it is 154 content disputes but only *one* incident  :) Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's totally pragmatic to host one discussion on this matter, but ANI is just not the place for content discussions, for numerous reasons. If there's a behavioural issue that you'd like to raise in clear terms, this is the place to discuss that matter (but not the related content issues). Otherwise, I think you'll find that WP:AfD routinely hosts discussions for deleting/redirecting large numbers of articles all linked by a common nucleus of a single author or issue (See WP:BUNDLE). Snow ^{let's rap} 18:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Collaborate Lots of good work and sourcing research went into those articles, which are collectively about a significant encyclopedic topic. Rather than a sweeping replacement with redirects, perhaps the contributor would like to help merge some groups of them into a more comprehensive set of bigger articles. "List of asanas" is very underdocumented by comparison. I don't see serious issues with leaving most of them as-is (a few specific ones are bogus/spammy or need rewriting).

  In any case, we should be encouraging this new and hard-working content contributor to keep writing up this info, and just switch to a different format than making 100s of tiny separate articles. Wiping it all out is a terrible way to do that. I don't see any contributions from Milena in that discussion on Fortuna's user talk, either. Added: what, is some redirection operation under way right now? 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Followup comment: attention-getting block MilenaGlebova1989 appears to have never responded to any post on her user talk page, and may not even know that she has one. I think doing a pile of mechanical redirects in that situation is not nice. It's probably better to resort to an "attention-getting block", urging the person to discuss the situation with the articles. The talk message and log entry should both be written with understanding, rather than using templates or boilerplate. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I only did 40 of the redirects, but I checked each one of those and there was no unique and salvageable content there. They all followed the exact same format: there was a brief introduction which duplicated what was already in List of asanas (which is where the articles were redirected), there was some medical advice and allegations about medical benefits/dangers which violated both WP:HOWTO and WP:MEDICAL, and there was what amounted to a list of spam, in the form of books that mentioned the asana in question (with various amazon.com and other inappropriate links). There was almost no actual reliable sources, but several less than reliable ones. It sucks to have one's hard work reverted, but since the article's creator has not responded for over a month despite several attempts to engage her in conversation, it is difficult to see what else could be done. (The user created an archive for her talk page back in December, so she is definitely aware that it exists, and she has edited since the conversation started.) The medical advice and the commercial spam would have had to go even if the articles had not been redirected. --bonadea contributions talk 14:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Mexicali IP range (177.239.*) 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 stumbled upon some long term abuse (about 7 months) from an IP subnet. A number of IPs in this range have been blocked for disruptive editing. The editing patterns are the same. See below for details. Expand table to see IPs and details.

My question is (1) can/should the most recent IP be blocked and (2) should I set up a specially titled SPI for this user since they have used a named account yet?

Habit: editing on cartoon and video game related pages. Copy-pastes the page or section name into the edit summary. Adds tons of categories, especially "cancelled" categories and ones related to international broadcast channels.

Example edits: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]

ISP: Cablemas Telecomunicaciones SA de CV

IP address	Date	Number edits	Geolocation	Notes
177.239.17.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	17 June - 21 July 2016	109	Mexicali, MX	Blocked on 01:16, 5 October 2016 by Drmies for 72 hours Blocked on 23:33, 3 October 2016 by Materialscientist for 24 hours
177.239.1.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	30 July - 11 August 2016	19	Mexicali, MX
177.239.15.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	20-28 August 2016	8	Mexicali, MX
177.239.19.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	1-5 October 2016	11	Mexicali, MX	Blocked on 01:16, 5 October 2016 by Drmies for 72 hours Blocked on 23:33, 3 October 2016 by Materialscientist for 24 hours
177.239.8.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	5-6 November 2016	20	Mexicali, MX
177.239.12.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	12-13 November 2016	21	Mexicali, MX	Blocked on 04:03, 13 November 2016 by Materialscientist for 24 hours
177.239.22.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	15 November - 4 December 2016	77	Mexicali, MX	Blocked on 23:23, 4 December 2016 by Widr for 3 months Blocked on 17:27, 20 November 2016 by Favonian for 2 weeks Blocked on 16:42, 16 November 2016 by RickinBaltimore for 72 hours Blocked on 04:38, 15 November 2016 by Materialscientist for 31 hours
177.239.10.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	8-12 February 2017	48	Mexicali, MX	Blocked on 23:17, 12 February 2017 by Ad Orientem for 1 week Blocked on 08:49, 12 February 2017 by Materialscientist for 1 week Blocked on 04:19, 9 February 2017 by Oshwah for 31 hours
177.239.25.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	16-18 February 2017	23	Mexicali, MX	Blocked on 05:16, 18 February 2017 by Coffee for 3 months
177.239.7.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	22-24 February 2017	16	Mexicali, MX

EvergreenFir (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I wouldn't open an SPI case. The IP editor seems to be making tons of disruptive edits and has been blocked repeatedly. There are a few lengthy blocks that are still active, so I'll do a month-long range block of 177.239.0.0/19. From looking over the range contribs, this is the only person on that range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you! Much appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

String of non-coincidental Boilerplate Recentist edits

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

---

Change Agent43, Dmoses816, and SpartanJoe are two of a group of editors who have been adding boilerplate text which violates, at minimum, both UNDUE and recentism. Appears to be part of a circular politically coordinated propaganda campaign, reporting campaigns of harassment by like minded individuals who have been targeting Republican congresspersons over the last few weeks and claiming the politicians are refusing to meet with their constituents at "town halls". Almost identical articles, edit summaries, references, etc. More usernames may be added. Unclear if any sockpuppetry going on. Dmoses816 warned by other editors regarding editwarring re same. Quis separabit? 16:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Specific articles, diffs and examples might be needed before an administrator will take action, in my experience at least, Rms. DarkKnight2149 16:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm taking a look, but yeah diffs and more specific evidence with links is generally expected at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem, @Darkknight2149 -- OK, done: see the following ([32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]). Quis separabit? 16:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. I also took a quick look at their contrib logs. I'm not convinced that this is socking, although it is possible. But it does smell like some kind of orchestrated campaign to insert political WP:POV material into articles. If I had to take a guess, I'd say it's more likely a case of WP:MEAT. I also agree that most of these edits are a breach of WP:DUE and RECENTISM. To my mind they certainly fail the ten year test. I'm going to kick this over to SPI and see what they have to say. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a duck to me. Both Change Agent43 and SpartanJoe created their accounts almost immediately after Dmoses816 was reverted and warned, in order to make the specific (and very similar) edits to similar articles. See [39], [40], [41]. DarkKnight2149 16:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"almost immediately"? Dmoses816 edited Rodney Frelinghuysen on 13 February, bickered with Toddst1 about his edit on the same day (including some templates on Dmoses816's talk page), and hasn't been back to edit since. Change Agent43 and SpartanJoe both registered accounts (roughly 12 hours apart) on 24 February, and edited articles on three different politicians, none of them Frelinghuysen. It's difficult to see the point of created multiple sock accounts when there isn't a block to evade and neither sock is editing the original article.

Change Agent43 and SpartanJoe both edited the article on Mike Bishop (politician) (indeed, that was the only article SpartanJoe edited). The two added content regarding different protests, on different dates, citing different news sources. I still can't figure out a motivation for sock/meatpuppetry here, since Change Agent43's edits to Mike Bishop hadn't been reverted, and Change Agent43 hadn't received any talk page messages, at the time that SpartanJoe's account was created. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Read "almost immediately" as "only a matter of days". And regardless of whether Rms is right or wrong, I see where they are coming from with these accusations and they weren't editing in WP:BADFAITH, so I believe that sanctions against them would be unnecessary. This case has been brought to WP:SPI, so it might be time to carry this discussion over there. DarkKnight2149 17:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Actually, I kind of fell down on the job here in that I didn't look at the complainant's edits until after the Checkuser result came in. Based on the edit that Rms125a/Quis made immediately after his posts here (the same type of edit he decries as recentist propaganda, but to a Democrat's article instead of a Republican's; see my comment below) I don't think the presumption of good faith remains appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Taking a quick peek at the contributions, I have to admit that I'm having a very difficult time substantiating Rms125a@hotmail.com's (Quis separabit's) assertion of a "coordinated propaganda campaign". That sort of over-the-top accusation is very inappropriate; making unsubstantiated accusations of that sort may lead to sanctions against the complaining editor.

Contrary to RMS125a/Quis' report, Change Agent43 (talk · contribs), Dmoses816 (talk · contribs), and SpartanJoe (talk · contribs) appear to be using entirely different references, edit summaries, and article text from each other.

• Change Agent edited the articles on Fred Upton, Dean Heller, and Mike Bishop (politician). Some of the wording between the three edits was similar, presumably because the incidents discussed were also similar (see below). To call the diffs "boilerplate" is really a reach, however: [42], [43], [44].
• Dmoses816 edited the article on Rodney Frelinghuysen.
• SpartanJoe edited Mike Bishop (politician) about 12 hours after Change Agent43 did (no intervening edits) but there's no reason to believe that the two accounts are related, and there would have been no reason for there to be sock or meatpuppetry there.

All three editors added references to news stories about Republican politicians cancelling or avoiding "town hall" discussions with their constituents, presumably over fears of confrontation regarding President Trump's (mis)behavior and/or proposals to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) or cut back other social programs. The story itself (Republicans hiding from their constituents over unpopular policies/scandals) has received a fair bit of press in the last few weeks, so it seems relatively unsurprising that editors would independently be adding references to it. Whether mention of the town hall problem clears the hurdle of WP:DUE is a content dispute for the article talk pages, not (yet) a user conduct issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• See... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmoses816. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• ...And the magic wiki pixie dust has come back as unlikely and/or unrelated for all three. Can we please not jump to 'grand political propaganda conspiracy' the next time a couple of different editors report something critical about Republicans? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I stand corrected then. I can't speak for anyone else but, even though I believed that this was a sock or meat situation, I was always aware that there was a possibility of the otherwise. DarkKnight2149 18:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your investigating. I believed something untoward and synchronized was occurring so I reported it. I guess I was wrong. Sorry to have wasted your time. @Darkknight2149: sorry if I put you in a difficult situation. Quis separabit? 19:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have concerns, there's no harm in asking for assistance, and there's no need to apologize for that.

There is harm in falsely accusing other editors of being part of a "circular politically coordinated propaganda campaign", engaged in "campaigns of harassment", when you have no meaningful evidence to support such an assertion. The mere existence of two or three editors who hold different political views from your own is not evidence of conspiracy. Where you ought to have made your apology is to the editors you smeared with a false accusation, and about whom you made a report containing a grossly misleading description of their edits.

Further, the type of edits that those other editors made and which you reverted – claiming that they represented undue WP:RECENTISM and propaganda – are on exactly the same type of claims (politicians avoiding their constituents at 'town hall' meetings) that you inserted into the article on Claire McCaskill (a Democratic senator): [45]. (For my fellow admins keeping score, Rms125a/Quis' Claire McCaskill edit came fourteen minutes after posting his complaint to start this thread, and was his very first edit after opening this discussion thanking us for investigating his complaint here.) So, are you just being WP:POINTy with your edit to McCaskill's article, or were you abusing AN/I and Wikipedia's dispute resolution process when you opened a spurious complaint against the other editors in order to punish them for their political views? (Okay, now you can apologize for wasting our time with your political gamesmanship.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC) (edited to correct timing of edits) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades I think your comment is a bit snippy. The report was made in good faith and should be treated as such. We looked into it and it appears to have been a false alarm. That's what we do here. And I find the outcome a pleasant change from the norm at ANI. No need to go snapping at people who see something suspicious and report it. It looked a little "too coincidental" to me as well. In any event I think we can wrap this up now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

My comment was indeed snippy. As an admin, I get snippy when experienced editors try to abuse our dispute-resolution process to win content disputes.

Rms125a/Quis has demonstrated that he was not acting in good faith. He was trying to use AN/I to punish political opponents; he saw fit to make exactly the same type of edit – "propaganda" and "harassment", remember? – on the biography of a politician on the other end of the political spectrum less than fifteen minutes after he thanked us for investigating here, under the vague edit summary of "Updated; rv deprecated external links".

While I'm not advocating for a block of Rms125a/Quis right now, I believe it is important that we very clearly convey to him that this sort of gamesmanship is inappropriate, and will result in sanctions if it recurs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @Ad Orientem: Sorry to revert your close of this thread, but I do believe that Rms125a's conduct needs to be addressed. If you'd prefer to cut this into a separate section, fine. But it would be inappropriate for us not to take official notice of his behavior. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I am glad you reverted the close of the thread as I was compiling my response, to wit:

• @TenOfAllTrades Ad Orientem: "There is harm in falsely accusing other editors of being part of a "circular politically coordinated propaganda campaign", engaged in "campaigns of harassment —— I genuinely believed the editors in question were engaged in the conduct described in the first part of the above clause (quoting you). However, I never accused them of engaging in a "campaign of harassment" (i.e. towards me or towards anyone on Wikipedia) -- the campaigns of harassment were/are the subject of the news stories which they quoted. I never referred to any harassment on their part on Wikipedia so I believe you have conflated something. I don't consider that I am guilty of political gamesmanship (see below), but if you believe I am then yes I am sorry as evidently I failed in what I was trying to do (see below) and left myself open to an a negative impression of my character and my edits. As far as the McCaskill edit, I did decide that:
• a) as the three had been exonerated then clearly referencing the town hall meetings was acceptable, thus
  b) out of curiosity I wanted to see what the result would be of inserting, with only the name/party changed, the same type of story they had included/inserted (as a matter of "transparency" as one of them put it). I even provided the reflinks on all three editors' talk pages to the story re McCaskill, one of which I knew would be subject to rejection (Breitbart) as unreliable. I very much want(ed) to see what -- if any -- results this might bring and if they would seek to delete my McCaskill edit on the same UNDUE/RECENTISM grounds cited in removing their edits. This is why I limited myself only to McCaskill, the first name to pop up on a Google search of the issue, rather than seeking out other names of other politicians on the other side of the aisle avoiding the town halls.
  If this gambit was wrong, then I don't know what to say. Block me if you feel it appropriate. I just hope you understand what I am trying to express as it may seem convoluted. Quis separabit? 21:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TenOfAllTrades This looks like a content dispute, in much the same vain as the three original subjects of this thread. I for one am not interested in trying to police editors with a political axe to grind. Unless it is exceptionally egregious that can be handled in the normal manner on article talk pages. If you have an issue with their edit I doubt that discussion belongs at ANI anymore than the probably WP:AGENDA oriented editing of the three editors mentioned at the top of this thread. The issue here was not a content dispute. It was the possibility of some kind of collusion including the possibility of sock/meat puppetry. That issue has been resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

RMS Wait. Are you saying you deliberately made dubious edits to an article in order to make some kind of point or political experiment? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: NO. The news regarding McCaskill has an immaculate source and I hope the text stands. It's just that one of the sources (Breitbart) is viewed by many but not all editors as unreliable. I watch-listed the article to see if the editors whom I reported would seek to delete that edit on the same grounds (RECENTISM/UNDUE) that I (and at least one other editor) had used to delete their dubious contributions. If this violates WP then I am ready to accept my punishment. Quis separabit? 21:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That sounds POINTY to me. And to be clear, there is a very strong community consensus that Breitbart is not a reliable source and should not be cited in articles. I'm not going to sanction you, but I want to be clear that I find your judgment in this instance lacking. We don't use articles for experiments or to make points or to entrap other editors. Do you understand this? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

RMS I have addressed this subject formally on your talk page. I am going to close this thread now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Tvx1 — refusal to respect a consensus

In the past few months, editors at 2017 World Rally Championship have been caught in a content dispute. Specifically, it focuses on the inclusion of content related to the WRC Trophy and whether it should be separated into its own article. After editors were unable to come to a consensus, I opened an RFC on the subject, in which editors were asked the following question:

"Should the WRC Trophy be split into a separate article?"

I included my position, as follows:

"We can reasonably create standalone articles for the WRC Trophy, rather than including the WRC Trophy articles within the primary season article."

User:MNSZ was the next to contribute, offering this:

"My point of view is that, in the main championship (lets say in this case the 2017 WRC, or the afore-mentioned 2015 WRC-2) should be a prose explaining that an "internal" cup is being held, with a link to the article."

User:Tvx1 also offered an opinion:

"It's no near notable enough to satisfy our notability guidelines to warrant a stand-alone article."

At this point, the RFC stalled and ultimately expired after thirty days with no further contributions. However, the subject came up again at WikiProject World Rally in a discussion with wider implications for articles within the scope of the WikiProject. MNSZ reaffirmed his support for a separate article, and User:Ivaneurope also contributed:

"IMO It's fine the way it is, but this proposal seems to be good."

Which I took to mean that Ivaneurope had no issue with the current form of the article, but would not oppose changes if they were a part of wider reforms.

With the RFC expiring, I reviewed all of the discussion and came to the conclusion that there was enough support for the WRC Trophy to be split into a separate article, even if the final form of that article had not been settled upon just yet. However, Tvx1 has since reverted those changes, claiming the following:

"There is no consensus for the split at all."

He has not provided any evidence for this claim, and has even gone so far as to claim that MNSZ and Ivaneurope are completely opposed to separating the WRC Trophy content into its own article, despite the content of the RFC. At this point, it should be noted that the editors in the discussion have gone to great lengths to suggest alternative solutions, most of which can be found at Talk:2017 World Rally Championship. Tvx1 has refused to co-operate, dismissing every single one immediately and further refusing to discuss them or how they could be improved or changed; instead, he has steadfastly refused to accept anything other than the current form of the article. It is quite clear that Tvx1 has no respect for a consensus that he personally disagrees with, and has moved to undermine it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify why I reverted. This was said by MNSZ in a discussion subsequent to the RFC:

"I was re-reading the Sporting Regulations and, in the Appendix XII (The WRC Trophy) says that "2.1.4 If fewer than 5 competitors have been classified at the end of the FIA WRC Trophy, the FIA reserves the right to suspend the Trophy.". Knowing this, I would not go for a full article as for now there could easily be no trophy at all. ... But going back to the WRC Trophy, I think that we can work in the sub-section option that was previously presented. It would be a "meet me half-way" kind of solution. If you all care to check my sandbox, I worked in this "sub-section". Please check not only that sub-section, but how I would work the "non-manufacturer" entries also. I think that it looks much more cleaner that way."

And Ivaneurope wrote the following in the same discussion on the talk page of the article in question:

"Drive DMACK Trophy does not exist anymore since M-Sport and DMACK supply with cars and tires to JWRC starting this season. Also WRC-2 and WRC-3 have the same calendar as the main category, while WRC-T entrants are just World Rally Car entries ineligible to score manufacturer points. Thus I don't see a need for separate WRC Trophy page."

Along with my contribution, than constitutes firm opposition to proposed split. As for the RFC, as both myself and Prisonermonkeys are involved in it, neither of us should search to make a review of it. A Request for closure has been posted yesterday and I think we should respect the process.Tvx1 21:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear....not the next instalment of "The battle of Prisonermonkeys vs Tvx1"... You guys seriously need to stop "point scoring" off each other by reporting each other for every little thing that happens to ANI/AN3. It's getting rather ridiculous and childish now and the worst that could happen is that you two will end up either being blocked or have an IBAN with each other. So drop the stick, stop fighting and work together for once! We're supposed to collaborate with others to help build an encyclopedia, not constantly point scoring off each other by reporting. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 21:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree that being here about this minor issue is ridiculous and childish. As said in my reply, I think we should simply respect Wikipedia's processes.Tvx1 22:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"As said in my reply, I think we should simply respect Wikipedia's processes"

Okay, then read WP:CRYSTAL. As I pointed out in the discussion, the wording of the regulations states that in the event that there are not enough WRC Trophy entries, the FIA may decide not to award it. So by continuing to include it, you're saying "this doesn't deserve a separate article because at some point in the future it might become irrelevant". It might become irrelevant. For now, the FIA is running it with the expectation that it will be awarded, but you're making decisions based on a highly specific set of circumstances that may never actually come to pass. That's CRYSTAL.

"Also WRC-2 and WRC-3 have the same calendar as the main category, while WRC-T entrants are just World Rally Car entries ineligible to score manufacturer points."

That's incorrect. WRC-T entrants are for specific models of WRC cars that are ineligible for points, not all WRC cars ineligible for points.

"But going back to the WRC Trophy, I think that we can work in the sub-section option that was previously presented."

The whole point of the discussion was to remove large tables that served little purpose. The proposed solution added more tables in, most of which simply repeated information in other tables. All of which I pointed out when discussing the proposal. Which is more than I can say for what you did, shooting half a dozen ideas down with no reason or explanation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, the quotes your replying to are not mine. Ping the users of questions if you want to engage their arguments. Secondly, this is not the place to discuss article content. It looks like your forumshopping here.Tvx1 00:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"Firstly, the quotes your replying to are not mine."

But you're using them to justify your decisions. When you quoted MNSZ, you were effectively saying "this content does not deserve its own article because of this speculation, but it does deserve to be included elsewhere despite the speculation". Ignoring for the moment that it's speculation, it's a paradox. If the regulation is so imperative as to threaten the Trophy, then all content should be removed until such time as it is awarded. But it's still speculation—the rule amounts to "if this happens, then that might happen". You're always removing speculation elsewhere, so why is it permitted here?

In the second example, where you quote Ivaneurope, the quote is factually incorrect. If you're then using that to justify an editing decision, it suggests that you don't understand the subject, so why are you making editing decisions about it?

'"It looks like your forumshopping here."

Not at all. This is about the way you ignored a consensus because you disagreed with it, then misrepresented things to suggest a completely different consensus had emerged. When MNSZ suggested that a separate article should be delayed because of the uncertainty in the regulations, I pointed out that it violated CRYSTAL. But you ignored that when you presented MNSZ's comment as evidence that you had a consensus.

You don't understand the subject matter. Certainly not as well as you think you do. You don't contribute to articles, but you insist that things need to be done a particular way based on the practices of editors of articles in another WikiProject, none of whom are involved in editing here. This is not about forum shopping—this is about you refusing to respect a consensus if you don't agree with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Interaction Ban Proposal

Since this childish dispute between the two has been going on long enough, I propose a two way Interaction ban between Prisonermonkeys and Tvx1 for six months. This is just getting petty now and hopefully a temporary interaction ban would finally stop this. After six months, we can review the situation. Alternatively, the IBAN could be extended to indefinite. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support temporary ban - as proposer. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Class455, I really really don't think it needs to come to this. This is simple disagreement over content and a constructive discussion has been held and we're simply awaiting its closure. If we respect Wikipedia's discussion processes I'm sure we'll have a solution sooner rather than later. Moreover, there's no disruption to articles. I have no personal dispute with Prisonermonkeys. Over our overlapping time here at Wikipedia we have agreed with each other just as much as we have disagreed. Also the discussion in question has not been solely between us two. At least four editors have contributed. Moreover, I doesn't take me for Prisonermonkeys to end up here. They have been embroiled in tedious discussion with other editors as well and even had a lunge at an administrator. I'm more than willing to collaborate, my history on Wikipedia will surely show this, and I'm sure this issue will get resolved sooner rather than later. I still think we should not have been here in the first place.Tvx1 14:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1. I understand, you are trying to collaborate and Prisonermonkeys isn't really helping, judging by the previous ANI discussions and warnings on his talk, but I can't stand however the fact you two are always taking each other to the Administrator's noticeboards and leaving each other warnings, over things over minor things such as this and alleged "edit warring", that's why I thought of an IBAN because this would be stopped. I was considering proposing that Prisonermonkeys only be banned from interacting with you but the recent report of Prisonermonkeys to AN3 which was declined made me think otherwise. I am also however open to modifying or withdrawing the proposal if you both agree to work together and stop taking each other to ANI/AN3 all the time unless there is a serious problem. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'm reluctant to go to the administrators noticeboards anyway. I think that the best report is no report. I'll only report something or someone when there is a serious problem. Like when I recently reported two users who were making a laughing stock out of WP:3RR. Admittedly, the edit warring report on Prisonermonkeys was borderline regarding seriousness. At the time they were edit-warring (at one point blanket reverting anyone editing the article in question) and there was no constructive discussion anymore. So after some reflection I decided to report. Should I have done so? Maybe so, maybe not. What I did learn is to reflect even more and more thoroughly whether or not to report. What I do regret is the amount of replies I made in that report. I only did so because of the continuous accusations of bad faith and personal attacks which were launched at me. In hindsight I should have backed out and let the administrators address the situation.Tvx1 17:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Class455

"Tvx1. I understand, you are trying to collaborate and Prisonermonkeys isn't really helping,"

I have to say that I disagree with this statement. If there is one thing that I have learned from working alongside Tvx1, it is that he knows Wikipedia policy and the FIA rulebook backwards. That's to his credit, but as I outlined above, he has misrepresented this situation. He quoted the opinions of editors he used to justify reverting those edits. One of those opinions put forward a proposal that did not work because of WP:CRYSTAL, while the other was based on information which was incorrect to the point where it would change the reader's understanding of the subject. Given what I know about him and his style of editing, I struggle to believe that he was unaware of either of these issues, much less both. In the RFC, editors were asked directly what they thought, but here Tvx1 has cherry-picked their views to justify his edits. If you read all of the discussions about what to do (and there are several in which various proposals are put forward), it is obvious that editors want to remove the content in question. Tvx1 is the only editor who provides any opposition, and never provides anything more than "no, I don't like it". The few arguments he provides are based on decisions made by other editors in other articles under the scope of other WikiProjects. When MNSZ put forward a proposal to keep the content in the article based on the Sporting Regulations, I at least took the time to provide a policy-based counter argument (namely CRYSTAL). Furthermore, you can hardly accuse me of not helping, given that I came up with half a dozen different solutions to the issue in response to the voices offered up by other editors, all of which were immediately dismissed by Tvx1.

That is why I came here—Tvx1 has clearly decided what he thinks that the article should be, and if a consensus is formed that he does not like, then he does not respect it. For him to then offer up a justification based on information that he knows is incorrect is an insult to everyone's intelligence. I would hardly call that collaborative. Nor is it the first time that he has done something like this: when racing team MRT collapsed ahead of the 2017 Formula One season, I suggested removing them from the driver table based on the dozens of reliable sources available. Tvx1 opposed it, and pointed out that when the team had previously been in danger of collapse, I had supported their continued inclusion in the table. This suggests that editors cannot change their opinions (despite persuasion being a key part of consensus-building), and that if they do, it counts against them in future discussions. How on earth is that collaborative? You've got one editor keeping a running tally of other editors' opinions and using it to try and negate their arguments elsewhere.

If an IBAN is necessary, I would agree to it if it applies to the both of us and if Tvx1 agrees to an additional condition: that, in the interests of promoting harmony (and making observing the IBAN easier) we each nominate one or two articles that we want to focus our individual energies on, and the other agrees that they will not edit that article or talk page for the duration of the IBAN. For the record, I would nominate 2017 World Rally Championship and McLaren MCL32 as the two that I wish to focus on; in exchange, I would agree to stay out of 2017 Formula One season and/or any other article Tvx1 wished to nominate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think an interaction ban is needed. I certainly do not think a prohibition to edit certain articles completely on top of that is warranted. We can agree with each other. As proven by a new Formula One Wikiproject discussion started this morning. I also do not run to the administrators whenever we have a disagreement. I have reported Prisonermonkeys exactly once to any noticeboard within at least the last twelve months. In this case we should simply respect the procedures outlined for a RFC. It is not up to the involved editors to unilaterally declare a consensus and certainly to than make sweeping edits based on it without gauging the opinion of the RFC participants on whether the assessment is right. It is everyone's good right to disagree if the claimed consensus does not reflect the preference stated by the participating users. I merely compared the claimed consensus to the preferences stated, noticed that they were contradictory, made one revert and BOOM, we're at ANI. Not necessary at all. We could have simply had a constructive conversation with the participants after having waited until the RFC was closed by an uninvolved editor through the correct procedure. Instead unilaterally declaring other editors' preferences void is very disrespectful to them. I think they have a say in this as well.Tvx1 17:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"I merely compared the claimed consensus to the preferences stated, noticed that they were contradictory, made one revert"

No, you cherry-picked which statements you wanted based on what was in line with your preferred version of the article. For example, MNSZ did not say that he had changed his mind. He said that he was considering an alternative based on a line in the regulations. That line said that if there are not enough entries by the end of the season, then the FIA may choose not to award the Trophy. It might be a regulation, but applying it in the article violates CRYSTAL twice—first because it will only happen under a specific set of circumstances (not enough entries) that have not come to pass, and secondly because even if those circumstances do not come about, the FIA can still choose to award the trophy. You're the one who always cracks down on CRYSTAL, but here we are with you ignoring it. The existence of that rule doesn't affect the suitability of keeping or splitting the content because the content will be deleted regardless of where it was posted if the trophy is not awarded.

That's why we're here—because I knew that you would do this. The opinions of the editors was quite clear, but they settled on a version that you disagreed with, so you picked and chose what evidence you wanted. Now you're trying to add the additional condition that everyone discusses it all over again once the RFC is closed down. Why don't you just respect the ideas put forward by other editors? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

User:GoldenGuy23

GoldenGuy23 (talk · contribs) After been blocked for a week for adding unsourced or poorly sourced content last month, this editor continue adding these sources that are not reliable. Websites such as Discogs, YouTube and WhoSampled, these sources go against the guidelines WP:ALBUMAVOID. This editor has been edit warring with other editors as well, including me, Kellymoat, Dan56 and Walter Görlitz in the past, me and other editors trying to tell him that these sources are not reliable, and after we reverted these edits, he restored these bad sources back to articles. Here are the evidence below.

[46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

Yes, I know these edits are plowed up to one, but you can see my problem with this editor. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Recommend a block: It appears that User:GoldenGuy23 had some issues in the past recently, including addition poorly sourced content and/or edit warring, and it seems to have returned. A longer to indefinite block would just shut this user up for sure. SportsLair (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair: I agreed, if this editor keeps adding content with bad sources and ignoring other editors or edit warring, might as well blocked him for a longer time. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• SportsLair, as long as you have a bolded comment that simply says "Block", I don't think anything is going to happen because to anyone skimming this page it looks like you are saying the user has already been blocked. I recommend that you unbold that and/or state that you recommend a block. Softlavender (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment His/her user page, User:GoldenGuy23, was apparently deleted on 2 April, 2016. Any idea why the user page of an active user was deleted? Dimadick (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The block notice explains that the page itself was created by another editor.

I'm going to ping SportsLair again: Could you please either unbold your comment or place the word "Recommend" inside the bolding, so admins can see that it was a recommendation and not a fait accompli? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Softlavender. I'm sure I'll understand your recommendation. I know it looks unstable, but something looks to be a total power surge here. SportsLair (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn

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

---

The user User:Flyer22 Reborn has been harassing me for quite a while, accusing me of sockpuppetry with zero evidence for it, harassment for removal of outdated primary sourced material here, and most recently the accusation that I followed flyer onto the Human brain article(which is actually beyond crazy to me....really? I see an article with a high importance rating that obviously seems very bad, and I got to edit it...and all of a sudden I did something wrong) here. This is getting to be problematic, and seems to me like WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Furthermore Flyer22's harassment would not be an issue if it were not for his/her/it's attitude and demeanor, which is quite disturbing. Petergstrom (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please not that I notified Flyer here, and he/she/it removed it. The proper procedure has been followed.Petergstrom (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Update. This edit demonstrates an edit based solely of vindictive anger...why remove well sourced material that was missing from this article. The content is necessary and relevant function of the brain, and for no reason it was removed. No doubt some silly claim will be thrown of POV pushing

You are a reckless, POV-pushing editor.

Petergstrom (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You should both use the article's talk page, for a start. El_C 22:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Two editors agreed that the function section was terrible, and she just flat out ignored that. That is actually pretty good evidence of vindictive harassment behaviorPetergstrom (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Happened to spot the ongoing edit war at human brain during change patrol, and a request for the page to be protected is pending. Home Lander (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

From my standpoint, it looks like a content dispute that became heated. One article talk page at a time: present your positions on the material. Myself, I'm willing to offer my opinion. El_C 22:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes the content dispute is relevant, but what I am tying to solve here is the history of harassment.Petergstrom (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it rising to that level. You carry the burden of proof to display a history of harassment. El_C 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And, more or less as per WP:BURDEN, it is your obligation and no one else's to provide the evidence to support your contentions. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom's accusations of harassment are unfounded. After indicating that Petergstrom is a sock because his edits are very similar to a previous editor, I left the matter alone because I do not yet have enough evidence to prove my case. As many editors on this site know, I do not make a sock accusation unless I am certain that the editor is a sock. And I'm usually correct about sock matters. After that, Petergstrom started popping up at articles that I significantly edit. The first one was the Psychopathy article, where Petergstrom engaged in reckless removals and falsely asserted that the topic is WP:Fringe. See here and keep scrolling down for what I mean. His fighting with Penbat was ridiculous, and Literaturegeek had to come in to point out how Petergstrom was wrong. After that, Petergstrom popped up at the Vegetarianism article, another article that I significantly edit, and he started making problematic edits to that article as well. He had also made a very poor edit to the Veganism article, which is yet another article that I edit. See here. It took Alexbrn weighing in on the matter. After that, Petergstrom showed up at the Insomnia article. While I do not heavily edit the Insomnia article, it is on my watchlist and I saw that Petergstrom has made reckless edits there, removing important material. I noted the WP:Preserve policy to him. See here. He indicated that he would continue to violate that policy. Jytdog helped with what Petergstrom recklessly removed. In that same discussion, I noted that I am working on the Human brain article, despite thinking to myself that Petergstrom might follow me to that article and edit recklessly there as well. And sure enough, he did. So I left a note on his talk page about WP:Hounding, stating that I would bring the matter here to WP:ANI if he continued to follow me. That's when he started making silly claims about how no one here cares about me, that I'm going crazy, and that he would bring the matter to WP:ANI too. See here. And so here we are.

Petergstrom has repeatedly made asinine edits to our medical articles, as currently seen on his talk page, and I do not believe he understands our sourcing policies well enough to be editing at all. Like Alexbrn stated, there are WP:Competence issues regarding this editor.

On a side note: I have dealt with many stalkers before, and some have been dealt with here at WP:ANI. So I know what I am talking about when it comes to stalking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 reborn overestimates her importance. Firstly, the psychopathy edits were justified, and many stand even now. The removal of primary material, duplicated content and the things still stands. Secondly, the veganism and vegetarian article edits were not poor, in fact we came to a conclusion that inconsistent policies were being applied, probably driven by WP:ADVOCACY. Third, the insomnia edits were justified, and Jytdog did not add any of the poor material back-material removed from the pathophysiology section, such as science daily, and multi decade old partially relevant primary studies. He added menstrual cycle risk factors as a cause. Lastly, Flyer22 overestimates his/her/it's importance. Just because some people edit similar articles, it does not indicate stalking or harassment. His/Her/Its behavior indicates stalking and harassment. Quite frankly the whole thing seems really ridiculous to me. The pure mental gymnastic being don't on Flyer22's part. It is like Flyer is the center of the whole dang universe. To the point where a multi week old remark made by Flyer, a remark which I barely skimmed over, is believed by flyer to be influencing heavily my editing now. It is just plain not true. A top importance article, on a wikiproject that I frequently edit, that is low quality is something I want to edit, regardless of who edits it. Petergstrom (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Overestimates my importance? Nah, I don't think so. But if anyone thoroughly examines what I've pointed to regarding you, they should see that you continuously engage reckless behavior, especially by disregarding the WP:Preserve policy. It's easy to see that you take removal of primary sources to the extreme. You also edit in ways that are clearly POV-motivated. Your WP:Edit warring and trying to WP:OWN articles is also tiresome. There is no advocacy going on at the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, unless it's your advocacy. The Veganism article was mostly written by SlimVirgin, and she knows what she's doing. As for following me, do not insult my or others' intelligence by stating that you are randomly appearing at articles that I significantly edit. We both know that it's not true. The Human brain matter was certainly no coincidence. You were bitter that I highlighted your poor editing. You clearly stalked me to the Human brain article.

So I am stating it right now: If I see you pop up at yet another article that I significantly edit (like the Vagina article, for example), I will be starting a thread here specifically about your WP:Hounding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And given how we feel about each other, there is no logical reason for you to show up and start editing an article that I told you that am I working on. Unless, of course, that reason is to cause me distress (which WP:Hounding forbids). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Show me some talk page discussion where changes are explained, or when they are not. El_C 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing? That's the thing about posting here (if you're lucky enough to get someone to listen), you have to do the legwork, or it doesn't work for neither of you. El_C 23:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, I pointed to talk page discussions above. In the Psychopathy discussions, for example, there are invalid claims of WP:Fringe. In the Vegetarianism discussion, there is indication that Petergstrom does not have a good grasp on sourcing issues. In that discussion, I also pointed to where he had misrepresented a source at the Veganism article. At the Insomnia talk page, I pointed out that he had recklessly removed relevant material. Jytdog restored some of it with better sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've already commented at Talk:Psychopathy, Talk:Vegetarianism and Talk:Human brain. El_C 00:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstom, stop calling Flyer22 "he/she/it". I shouldn't have to explain why calling a person "it" is demeaning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So far as I can see, he only did that in the first post, and has since then been correctly referring to her as "she". John Carter (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Still quite inappropriate and ideally would be struck. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It was done in this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit. Some of these were additions to existing edits, but I don't care that much. Changing your post so that it adds "it" as a pronoun to refer to someone is pretty obnoxious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that that is needlessly inflammatory. If there's doubt, use s/he. El_C 00:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I personally prefer they. It's more formal when in doubt. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows users to report their gender in their preferences. A editor's gender is available by using (or simply checking in preview) the {{gender}} template and is shown on hover with Navigastion Popups. The fact that Flyer22 has declared her gendrer this way and mentions it in her user space ("I am female and was born in Florida.") makes Petergstrom's "he/she/it" jab that much more grating. Rebbing 01:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, they. You ask for evidence of harassment, and I gave it in the first post, if that is not sufficient "legwork" I am compiling more. The psychopathy discussion of fringe, was not supported by recent secondary sources, so yes it was an incorrect claim. The edits, however, were good. The removal of outdated crappy sources, and duplicates, were justified and still stand today. The veganism article, nothing was misrepresented. That would imply malicious and intentionally manipulating something to support a point-which was not done. I used "vegan population" instead of "vegan population in hong kong and india"(or some region like that). The rest of the dozens of edits were totally justified and still stand. The insomnia article is a different matter. Jytdog added NOTHING back with better sourcing, he wrote something COMPLETELY NEW. Not in the pathophysiology section, where I removed piles of garbage-in the CAUSE section, where he added a sentence that menopause may be associated with insomnia. Now onto the WP:OWN. If Flyers statement above on the vagina wikipedia page is anything, it is evidence of s/he attempting to WP:OWN a page. Flyer22 still has this mentality that everything I do is dictated by her actions-that is plain wrong. S/he needs to understand, that his/her impact on my life in nearly zero. Until today, I barely gave him/her a thought(except for the sock puppet accusation, which was quite rude). The bottomline is, that the following

1. sock puppetry accusations-WP:NPA Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.
2. unnecessary removal-Unnecessary to remove a multi decade old, primary source? WP:MEDRS
3. incredibly self centered behavior-Borderline fanaticism, WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN
4. removal of relevant well sourced material-Vindictive behavior, WP:CIVIL

Are behaviors that don't seem to follow wiki policy on behavior. Together the accusations constitute some form of harassment, Petergstrom (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The only NPA mention is 1st link, which doesn't work for me. El_C 01:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with you removing material is that you never keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind. Often, what you remove can be easily supported by tertiary and/or secondary sources. When you remove content like that, valuable content is lost. It is not the usual case that editors go searching through an article's edit history to see what was removed. Therefore, valuable content is commonly lost with removals like yours. I explained this to you at the Insomnia talk page.

You did misrepresent data at the Veganism article. Whether or not the misrepresentation was intentional, I explained how you did so at the Vegetarianism talk page.

I am not trying to WP:OWN any articles. I am trying to keep you from editing them recklessly. And I do not like to be followed to articles by editors who currently have a tempestuous relationship with me. See the distress part of WP:Hounding. I wanted to edit the Human brain article in peace. It is clearly a main article that I am focusing on. And yet you somehow thought it would be good to focus on it too? It makes no sense for you to pop up at the Vagina article either, especially since that article is put together quite well and will be nominated for WP:GA status soon enough. The only reason you would have for popping up at that article is because I pointed it out above and made it clear to you that I would not tolerate you following me to articles I am significantly working on.

I wish that I didn't have to continuously deal with people stalking me, especially after they've felt disgruntled because of some argument. But it is something I often have to deal with because of my stance on following rules like WP:NPOV accurately, and because the articles I edit tend to be contentious, and because I have busted so many socks. Yes, quite a few socks stalk me, whether as IPs or as new accounts. This is not paranoia on my part, as such stalkers or socks tend to claim. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• The Editor Interaction Analyser is very useful here. Here you can see that the two editors have mutually edited 29 articles, and in practically all - 26 - cases Flyer22 Reborn has edited the article first. These include some very obscure articles. I can only assume from this data that Petergstrom (who let's not forget has only 1,495 articlespace edits in total) is indeed stalking Flyer22 Reborn to articles she has edited, and this needs to stop - NOW. Therefore (a) I suggest a one-way interaction ban (i.e. that Petergstrom cannot edit articles that Flyer22 Reborn has edited, including talk pages), and (b) Petergstrom may be subject to immediate blocking by any administrator if he should again follow her to an unrelated article. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sweet, sweet legwork. I'm referring to Black Kite, with whom I tend to agree. 26 of 29 is, indeed, quite a disconcerting ratio(!). El_C 00:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow that is just ridiculous. I have edited hundreds of articles in neuroscience, psychology, and popular media. I like the walking dead. I like game of thrones. I'm interested in psychology, and neuroscience-particularly in the influence that prenatal hormones has on gendered behavior. I have edited many many articles in neuroscience and psychiatry area, particularly mood disorders, monoamines, and there is bound to be overlap, given the extent to which she edits. The fact that we have edited the same 29 articles(many of which he/she made only one or two edits a long time ago, that I would not have known about, and don't care about) does not indicate stalking. The fact that he/she has been on WP for years before me is also an explanation. An editor, who hangs out around a lot of the science/social science articles, and over a couple of years has made over a hundred thousand edits, is bound to have overlap with an editor with 1400 edits highly focused on the science/social science section. Petergstrom (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• That is indeed a possibility (if it had not been, an administrator may have blocked you already). I am simply pointing out that following Flyer22 Reborn to any further pages that you have not previously edited may be looked upon very dimly indeed. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(multiple e-c) I kind of have to agree with Petergstrom about the nature of the "interactions" here. It looks to me at least 13 of the articles listed are ones where the time difference between the two editors is over a year. If he were really stalking Flyer22Reborn, it would be really easy to spend a lot less work checking her edit history and making staling edits to articles she had edited more recently. Having said that, Petergstrom, you've already been advised about using "he/she" and told that Flyer is, in fact, a female. Try not to fall into the same problem so frequently, OK? I imagine Lassie got really fed up with that blasted Timmy brat for falling in the well as often as he apparently did, too, and repeating that mistake doesn't help your cause at all. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point. If the edits were months or years ago and then you show up recently, that can make sense. The question, then, is how closely to the actual edits overlap. El_C 01:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I stalking Jytdog (talk · contribs) here? Perhaps I am notoriously stalking Doc James (talk · contribs) too? If this tool is at all EVEN AN INDICATOR of harassment behavior, then I have literally stalked every prominent WP editor in the sciences area of WP, to an even more severe extent than my terribly atrocious stalking of flyer22 reborn. Ridiculous. I am really disappointed in WP right now. If this is what passes as "legwork".....this is sad. If you take note of this, and don't even comment on the actual evidence I presented, I have no idea what this board is forPetergstrom (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We are still investigating. Best keep it relaxed as you can and avoid characterizations like "poor poor flyer22 reborn." El_C 01:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Petergstrom is showing up to articles that I significantly edit as well. Does the combination of editing the Psychopathy, Vegetarianism, Veganism and Human brain articles really seem like a coincidence? The focus on these articles came after my objections to Petergstrom's editing. And this is especially the case for the Human brain article. And now Petergstrom is citing me not wanting him to follow me to articles, including the Vagina article, as some indication of WP:OWN. I've noted above the issues with following an editor you have a tempestuous relationship with to articles. And, yes, Petergstrom has been following Jytdog and Doc James too. But I think he's been following them more so to learn and to get their approval. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've also made it clear that I've been through this many times.

If Petergstrom shows up at more articles I significantly edit (like the Vagina article), including articles that I have brought to WP:GA status, will that be a coincidence too? I think not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How soon after the dispute started picking up momentum did he show up at those articles? El_C 01:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

He waits a bit, like a week or two or so. I think he waits in order to divert attention from having followed me. But the following is clear to me either way. After I addressed him on his talk page about editing with a previous account, I knew that it would not be long before he started showing up to articles I have a significant interest in. After I pointed out that I was working on the Human brain article, I knew it would not be long before he started editing it. The predictability was easy because I've been through this type of thing countless times before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's be careful about basing conclusions about this editor's conduct upon what you have experienced with entirely different persons. Unless the person you suspect Petergstrom of being a sock of is one of those stalkers, your previous experiences really have no useful predictive power for this individual, and it's unfair to saddle him with a presumption of bad faith on that basis alone.

That said, there's some pretty compelling evidence here, considering his showing up at articles you have edited consistently after you have. But it's still all a little circumstantial; all of the articles I've seen mentioned here are pretty major articles and the fact that you edited them first could simply be a product of you having been on the project much longer. I come from a biopsychology background myself, for example and have edited most of those articles myself, if memory serves. So we need to parse this a little more cleanly. You say that Petergstrom has shown up on more than one occasion at certain articles about a week or two after engaging with you elsewhere. How many of these instances involve him undoing your work or otherwise putting himself in a position to engage with you directly, and has there even been a time where he was doing so on multiple articles concurrently? I'm highly suspicious here and I'm looking for the smoking gun that will let me support a 1-way IBAN, but I just need a little more. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Are you actually taking Flyer22's allegations(with no actual evidence) seriously, while blatantly ignoring the harassment she has posed, with her sock puppet allegation, and now this allegation? A user, with 240,000 edits, in the english wiki of 2 million articles, is going to have edited some major pages before a newer editor with 1400 edits, concentrated in the biopsychology, neuroscience, health area etc etc. I don't know how many times I have to say this:'I do not care about what flyer22 edits, or what she thinks, but I do care about being harassed. The only time where I have given her a second of thought, is due to her ridiculous allegations, which quite frankly, are annoying as hell. I want her behavior to be reigned in, so I can go back to making helpful contributions.Petergstrom (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think anyone questions necessarily the problematic nature of some of the more recent edits, Flyer22Reborn, just indicating that some of the "interactions" with over a year lag time between them might not necessarily count for much. And I think that if there were broadened interactions hereafter, that would definitely be very credible evidence. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John Carter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this statement "And, yes, Petergstrom has been following Jytdog and Doc James too. But I think he's been following them more so to learn and to get their approval." is an attempt at being obnoxious, and not a reflection of your own thought process-something that would be very, very, very disturbing. The edits to the human brain article occurred after I went to the article in hopes of finding a quality, complete section, discussing the functions of the brain. I hoped to find the immediate functions, as well as from an evolutionary perspective. Instead I found the current sad section. The edits to the vegan and vegetarian articles were both after googling them to fact check a meme I was(no kidding) curious about. This is really getting to a ridiculous point. Flyer22 needs to reign in her behavior, which I clearly demonstrated above violates multiple wiki policies. Petergstrom (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, speaking strictly for myself, I don't find much obnoxious in the comment at all. It would certainly be not unreasonable for a comparatively new editor (you've been here since October?) to try to edit in such a way as to generate negative reaction if such was required from senior editors. Kind of an informal "mentoring," maybe. There might be better ways to do it, admittedly, but I think I have seen a few other editors here do the same sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I began editing the vegan article on the 16th of january, long after the (regrettable) first encounter I had with Flyer22 on the psychopathy article at the beginning of december, after joining in late october, after spending most of november hanging around the PED/Adaptogen/MDD/CFS area. Petergstrom (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Your explanations are the similar to others claiming that they weren't stalking. In a short of amount of time, you showed up at the Psychopathy, Vegetarianism, Veganism and Human brain articles. No matter what you state, that is not a coincidence. And if you show up at more, I will have even more evidence of your stalking. As for my supposed violations, you do not understand the rules well; so I don't put much stock into your assertions of having violated the rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You're only three days apart with the first one though; as for the second, that was quite a bit of (seemingly-pertinent) content you removed with your first edit... El_C 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, your reply is meant for Petergstrom, right? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you cant accept the fact that psychopathy, edits, along with ASPD edits were due to the fact that I am interested in psychiatry(as evidenced by my hundreds of edits in that area), and that the veganism/vegetarian edits(to the cardiovascular effects of the diets nonetheless...hmmmmm what does that sound like? Stalking or perhaps the editing of an editor interested in that area of science....hmmmmm) were due to the finding of very biased statements of benefits, then I would have doubts about your WP:COMPETENCE, in particular the way you place such an importance of yourself in other peoples decision making----you have to understand that you aren't that important. I literally never gave you a second thought, after skimming over whatever you said to me. Petergstrom (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The title of this thread is "Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn", and yet, so far, what this thread shows is stalking by you. It has yet to show that I have been stalking or harassing you. So your understanding of the WP:Competence essay is also flawed. Follow me to more articles I am working on, and there will be a thread here on you in the future. Mostly likely, the near future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't make me refer both of you to WP:DR, because I would do it. I am that bleeping crazy! El_C 02:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, conflict resolution relies on the flexibility of the persons involved in the conflict-if Flyer22's self importance refuses to be flexible, no amount of conflict resolution would help. Petergstrom (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

But it's fast becoming your only hope. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No it has not shown any "stalking by me", it has shown nothing. I have, however, demonstrated the violating of multiple wiki policies by you. Petergstrom (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me give a more in depth example. Sepi333 and I edit the same obscure pages-due to overlapping interests, such as Dopaminergic pathways, motivation, Reward system etc etc. However, given that he has a healthy ego, he understands that this is not "stalking", but is rather an overlap of interests. However, he does throw out accusations of sock puppetry ("because he is frequently right" hurr durr durr), or stalking, because he has a healthy sense of ego. Petergstrom (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What does any of this has to do with it fast becoming your only hope. You've been repeatedly asked to indent correctly here. El_C 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Since it's clear that you intend to keep following me to articles I am working on, we will see just what editors state in that future WP:ANI thread. Your WP:ANI thread is a bust.

And as for self-importance, nowhere do I assert my importance here. Others have stated that I am important to this site, and I could point to diff-links showing that. I do not let such compliments go to my head. Yes, I have contributed to many important areas on this site. Yes, many Wikipedians feel that I'm important to this site, as indicated by past comments on my talk page and emails. I accept that. You should too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't even know how to feel...if anyone wants to know what its like to be laughing, disgusted and annoyed at the same time...hmu. Let's break this down

• Since it's clear that you intend to keep following me to articles I am working on, we will see just what editors state in that future WP:ANI thread.

• Clear from what? Clear from the mental gymnastics done by you, and your grandiose ego that just needs a stalker to feel good?

• Your WP:ANI thread is a bust.

• I wasn't aware it was over, but if it is, it seems that you might stop harassing me now

• And as for self-importance, nowhere do I assert my importance here.

• You are not wrong, you don't explicitly say it. However your behavior, does as I have pointed out many times.

• Others have stated that I am important to this site, and I could point to diff-links showing that. I do not let such compliments go to my head. Yes, I have contributed to many important areas on this site. Yes, many Wikipedians feel that I'm important to this site, as indicated by past comments on my talk page and emails. I accept that. You should too.

• This is not the self importance I am talking about. You are overestimating your impact on others. Way. Too. Much.

• I think he waits in order to divert attention from having followed me

• This screams to me the words "delusional", "obsessive", "paranoid", "grandiose". If you think anyone actually cares THAT much about you, your edits, and what you think of them, that is disturbing. No after I first interacted with you, I did not spend 6 hours straight thinking about you, reading your edit history, compiling a profile, in my room in my basement with tin foil over the windows, and a triple padlocked steel door. No, I did not spend the next week sitting in that room, with a whiteboard, and yarn linking edits and wikipages, thinking about the most effective strategy for subverting, and obfuscating. I did not set up thousands of dollars of computers, calculating my sinister plot, waiting to strike-waiting for the moment when....wait for it....I COULD DISRUPT SOME RANDOM EDITORS WIKIEDITING *maniacal laughter ensues*. Hell, I didn't even give you a second thought after skimming over whatever it was you wrote.Petergstrom (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet more nonsense and personal attacks from you. Stating that you should accept that others find me important to this site is because of your constant need to state how unimportant you find me to be. Your talk page response about the hounding matter and your above commentary shows just how obsessed you are with stating how unimportant I supposedly am. And such comments could be categorized as coming from a place of insecurity or inferiority regarding your own edits. Some might even state that they come from a place of jealousy. And if they understand psychology like I do, they just might be right. Your comments also indicate that you are indeed the past editor I believe you to be. No matter. I've stated what I need to state. You have been warned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Trolling and harassment (both of which Flyer22 has been a victim of) of editors doesn't take hours to plan, it takes minutes. Less if you've done it before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It cannot be that easy to do what you do. All I want, is for your behavior to stop. For your reckless accusations to stop. For you to understand that, no, I don't care about you, BUT I DO CARE ABOUT BEING HARASSED.' Petergstrom (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: That is not what she indicated when she said "he waits in order to diver attention from having followed me". The belief that someone, a troll nonetheless, would take a week to avoid detection in their trolling, is crazy.Petergstrom (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I can quite emphatically state that that notion is not "crazy". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So you are telling me, NeilN, that you have met people...real human beings...that seriously have nothing better in their lives to do, than to single out a random editor of wikipedia pages, and to make disruptive edits to the pages, but doing so very slowly, and very secretively in an attempt to troll/stalk/harass them. That is sad. I enjoy editing wikipedia. I enjoy editing pages I have interest in. My edit history is evidence that I am here to edit, and until today, none of my editing was AT ALL influenced by Flyer22. However, her accusations of me being a sockpupper(unsubstantiated, which I have brought up many times, but has been ignored) as well as the unsubstantiated claims that I follow Flyer to articles, are annoying, and need to stop. If the admins agree that accusations of sock puppetry and harassment by flyer are ok, then until the annoyance outweighs the good of WP, I can just ignore it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have witnessed the behavior you're describing more than once. I've even seen someone put significant effort into making a credible back-story so he could say wide-eyed: "But I'm obviously not a troll! Just look at my {comments,posts,edits}! I can't believe anyone would actually have nothing better to do with his life than to scheme against someone on the Internet!" Rebbing 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rebbing:, Really?? this was just a "backstory", so that I could get to my real intent of trolling? I read hundreds of papers so that I could "troll"? Really??? Really???? I cant even believe wikipedia right now. This is actually one of the saddest things...a website I had so much respect for....Really???? Really? There is not a a single SHRED, of evidence that suggests I give two damns about what Flyer edits or thinks. But I give real, tangible, credible evidence of harassment and it gets blown off? Really? I can't even express who ridiculous the whole thing is getting.Petergstrom (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You misread my comment: I did not say you were a troll or that your contribution history was a sham. I merely voiced my observation—in rebuttal to your skepticism—that many have gone to extraordinary lengths to exact petty revenge. Please stifle your outrage; it is not adding any light to this situation. Rebbing 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As can I. It doesn't even take any effort: one could flip through an editor's week-old contributions, watchlist an article with the intent of editing it the next time it pops up, or bookmark the page in a date folder. Trolls are anything but lazy. Rebbing 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not an admin, although I've played with one on tv. One of the most main points between Wikipedia editors is to help make everyone's experience enjoyable, and not to try to make it less enjoyable. The recent edit, screaming the words, is pretty offensive, and probably should be walked back. Flyer22 Reborn is important to the site, and in some areas, very important. This is fact, not her boasting. So please, Petergrstrom, maybe rethink the pressure of defending your case if it goes into name calling to that extent. Wikipedia is a polite place, although I have been impolite to a couple of grandiose self-important complete azzwipe editors fine gentlemen of the realm. Let's make everyone's experience here a little better and wind-down some of this stuff before it flips into the really nasty get-up-and-go. Peace, love, and singing stuff about cats or sunrise's or something. Randy Kryn 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well in one of my first encounters with a fine gentle(wo)man of the realm, I had to bold the point because nobody seemed to get it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Best we tone down the accusatory language and just see what can be worked out one article talk page at a time. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the behaviour of either editor here has been stellar in any sense of the word. The "policy violations" are numerous on both sides; the multiple accusations of sockpuppetry but no diffs (not here at least) to link Petergstrom to any other editor by Flyer22reborn (ASPERSIONS) and the near-constant accusations of quite serious behavioural (not bad behaviour, but, the issues of self-aggrandizement, delusions, etc) problems from Petergstrom (NPA, CIVIL). This is cause enough for civility blocks to be handed out, though if I'm being direct, I am far more concerned with the near abusive nature of some of Peter's comments than I am with Flyer's sockpuppetry accusations. No more "you're mental" style comments, Peter, you've made quite enough of them. I am mildly surprised you haven't received at least a warning for them. The stalking claims, Flyer, are both difficult to prove and evidence is circumstantial at best; Peter makes a good point regarding the editor interaction anaylzer, it alone is evidence of jack diddly squat. You need to look at the pages concerned, the times of editing, a log of the page history, and individual edits themselves. The individual edit themselves are the best indicator for stalking because they alone form the basis of a pattern. The return claims of harassment by Peter are relatively unsubstantiated beyond referring to the concurrent stalking claim by Flyer. Other than that, I see zero harassment going in the direction of Peter. I want her behavior to be reigned in, so I can go back to making helpful contributions, there is a simple solution for this, just go do something productive and forget Flyer22 until or unless further issues arise. This thread is rapidly generating more heat than light. There is, however, no simple resolution for any competency issues that may exist and I profer no opinion on that point because ·I have limited competency myself on the topic areas of medicine, the human body and its functions, and psychology. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I just want to point out that Flyer22 Reborn has indeed been very accurate in their detection of sockpuppetry. No one is perfect, of course, but Flyer22 has an extremely good batting average. I think that they perhaps might have waited to make an accusation until they had more evidence, but, given their record, their suspicions should afforded some weight, given the behavior of Petergstrom as described in this thread, especially the Editor Interaction Analyser data pointed out by Black Kite. [53] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So I've read above Beyond My Ken. My personal stance on an issue such as this is; if you don't have evidence, don't make accusations. I personally don't afford 'suspicions' any weight without a reason to do so. That reason doesn't have to be proof of sockpuppetry per se, but, it does have to be something more than a flat accusation. I agree, however, on the topic of Peter's behaviour being uncollaborative and uncivil. As for the EIA, as I said above, it alone is evidence of jack diddly squat. If a new editor and an old editor hold similar interests and edit within the same topic area they will overlap. Yes, there is a significant amount of overlap and yes, Flyer has been first to edit 26/29 pages. Of those however only 10 have less than one months time separating her and his edit, and of those all three of the pages he was first to edit are included; Gender inequality, gender inequality in the U.S. and Antisocial personality disorder. Now, basically that means that he's followed her to 7 out of 10 pages, and she's followed him to the other 3 - note; I do not mean followed as in stalked, but, as in came there after. So either he's seeking out pages she hasn't edited in months by going through her contributions history, or, alternatively, he's just happened across them at a later date. I'm going to AGF and say he's not sitting around wading through Flyer's contributions for hours just to make her miserable. If this is actually what's happening, then that's simply pitiful ... I have other adjectives for it as well, but, NPA/CIVIL. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Addendum; I should add, that the EIA is useful in stalking/hounding cases for raising red flags and directing a person where to look and perhaps identify obvious patterns. In this instance, however, I've found nothing unusual even outside of the medicine/human anatomy/human pyschology topic areas. I should also add that this has also come to my mind as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, without addressing everything that you have stated since I feel that I have stated enough in this thread (both above and below), I am taking the time to note that it is usually the case that I do have evidence, but it may be that the evidence is not strong enough. WP:CheckUser wouldn't work in this case since the previous account is stale. It is not unusual for me to wait until I have more evidence. Like many editors have done, including administrators, I gave Petergstrom a chance to acknowledge that he has edited Wikipedia under a different account. When he denied it and started focusing on my block log (mischaracterizing it), I moved on, knowing full well that he would likely start to appear at articles that I significantly edit because of that sockpuppet inquiry on his talk page. I know that you likely feel that I should not have addressed the sock matter at all, but there have been cases where addressing a sock about his or her previous account resulted in the sock acknowledging that they are a sock. This includes cases I've been involved in. And I reiterate that I have been stalked a number of times before, and the stalking patterns are generally the same. They are the same so often that I currently make it clear on my user page that I won't even list my WP:GAs and WP:FAs there on my user page. When it comes to the Gender inequality and Antisocial personality disorder articles, I edited those first, as seen here and here. I did not significantly edit them, but they remained on my watchlist. I know that you state that you do not see a stalking pattern, and I accept that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To shorten that - you had no evidence, you accused someone of being a sock without evidence, you accused them of stalking despite the fact they have a fairly small defined area of editing which overlaps yours (which could be seen *at the time* you accused them of being a sock) and think that because they eventually show up at an article (within their area of editing) you edited sometime in the past its evidence they are a sock/stalking you? This is not a case of 'not having enough evidence' this is a case of you being so far from being in possession of anything resembling evidence that its laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And that is an inaccurate characterization, for reasons I and others in this thread have made clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... EIA must have gotten those two wrong in this case. I wonder why it lists Petergstrom as the first editor when it obviously has you editing it years ago... probably the timeline of the latest edits but it's still wrong. My apologies there Flyer22 Reborn, it would have done me well to dig that bit deeper. I looked at the thread on Peter's page where you; gave Petergstrom a chance to acknowledge that he has edited Wikipedia under a different account. I'm not going to harp on this because I've never had wikistalkers that harrassed me or been in any particularly difficult disputes, but, your approach is ... not one I'd recommend to anyone. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my comment above: many people who edit Wikipedia for a long time develop a nose for sockpuppetry. Some have OK noses, some have good noses, and some have very good noses. Flyer22's nose for sockpuppetry happens to be very, very good. That doesn't mean that she is correct in this case - everyone is human, everyone makes mistakes - but it does mean that admins should (and some do) pay some attention when she voices a suspicion. I'd very much like to see the CU policy loosened up somewhat, so that editors with a good track record regarding sniffing out socks are given enough credence to allow a CU scan to be done (even without a named puppetmaster) without the "no fishing expeditions" rule being trotted out. If the editor starts being wrong a lot, that credence can be lost, but in the meantime we'll have retired some socks. Further, I think an exception should be made for CUing editors who exhibit general sock-like behavior, something that many users can detect. All of that can be done totally within WMF policies - it's the en.wiki community which has chosen to fetter CUs, not the Foundation, which is ironic since, as the biggest and most read of all the WMF encyclopedias, we're the one which needs the tools to crack down on socking, while other wikis are the ones with the more liberal rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe summarizing this will help. I come to the board, asking for help, due to harassment from Flyer22 Reborn. I notified her on her talk page, and provided evidence. I used he/she/it, and was reprimanded. She responded with allegations that I have been maliciously planning, and subverting attention in order to troll her. I state that that is ridiculously self centered, paranoid, and ridiculous. She accuses me of following her to the following articles

• Veganism
• Vegetarianism
• Psychopathy
• Insomnia

These articles receive thousands of views a day, and are relevant in the health and neuroscience area, that I have been editing significantly in since I started. We first encountered each other in the psychopathy article talk page-I removed poorly sourced material, and then asked about changing the article to reflect its fringe status, however I realized I did not have a quality secondary source, and that it would be OR, so I backed off. I continued to edit in areas related to neuroscience, psychology, etc etc. For some reason, Flyer22 accuses me of sock puppetry, a serious, rude and unsubstantiated claim. I move on. In my editing of fibromyalgia, the creation of functional somatic syndrome page, and edits to he biology of depression, I came across a link to insomnia. I had quite a bit of research, so I checked the insomnia page, and saw that the pathophysiology section was poorly outdated. I updated it. I saw something claiming major benefits from vegetarian diets, so I went to check if it was true, on the WP article I saw some pretty crazy claims too. So I did some research, found secondary sources, published recently in quality journals, and updated the article to reflect current consensus. While browsing in neuroscience, I find the human brain page to be terribly deficient in the "functions" section. I edit it. And then I get accused of following Flyer22 to articles. Her behavioral pattern of seeing malicious intent in everyday goings on is ridiculous, and even more so is the audacity she has to threaten someone with it. What is even worse, is that instead of finding an objective admin board, objective like I experienced with the fantastic editors(mostly) in the medicine section, I find Dark Kite showing "fantastic legwork", showing how Flyer22, with 240,000 edits, and I with 1500 overlap on some articles in my region of interest. Woah. Crazy? Not really. It is not even INDICATIVE of me giving two damns about what she edits(which I demonstrated by showing my overlap with other prolific editors in that area). However, nobody takes seriously the harassment posed by her, but they do take seriously her crazy claims, not based in reality. Summarized.Petergstrom (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time the OP familiarize himself with the First Rule of Holes? John from Idegon (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Newcomer User:Soli58 has arrived on the scene (Contribs). El_C 04:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

{@El C: So is that it? Is this report done? So the harassment by Flyer22 I should just ignore? That can be done. And is there a consensus about Flyer22's allegations(with zero evidence)?Petergstrom (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You failed to respond when I asked you about your non-working claimed-NPA link — and that question remains unanswered. No, you've failed to establish a clear pattern of harassment to my satisfaction. El_C 05:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh my god. I thought that it didn't work as in it was insufficient evidence! All this time??? Oh my god. I will fix it. Wow.Petergstrom (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

here it should work now. Now what about the counter allegations?Petergstrom (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the personal attack? Asking if you're a sock? It's not the most goodfaith-assuming question, but I don't know if that rises to that level. El_C 05:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• i've been pinged a few times and have been thinking. Thoughts:
  • if you look at Petergstrom's first edits from Oct 2016, they are not really a newbie's. (see here). and they were warned about edit warning almost right of the gate.
  • I encountered Petergstrom first at articles about health (their articles in that arena have been about neuro and psych topics) and their edits on each article have been extensive (big flurries of rewriting) and generally poor in sourcing and summarizing. Clearly has a strong interest in neuro/psych so I (and others) put a bunch of time into trying to teach them how to edit correctly on health topics... and at the rate they were editing this was essential. (you can see the dialogue in this old version of their talk page) Their initial responses were dismissive like this:: The content was sourced!! What are you talking about? and this: I did read it. I am not ignoring it, the sources are totally valid, stop reverting the edits.. And kept insisting that their extensive use of old/primary sources was fine. (diff, diff) They finally kinda sorta got it. Kinda. I have remained cautiously hopeful they would turn out to be solid members of the community.
  • Around that time they did some aggressive and badly reasoned editing at Performance-enhancing substance as you can see from its history -- aggressive reverts. There was an equally aggressive advocate on the other side who self-destructed finally. I happened to agree (mostly) with the direction Petergstrom wanted the article to go, but the behavior and reasoning were bad and aggressive (you can see that on the article talk page too) and got them their first block for edit warring.
  • their editing at MDMA and its talk page was so aggressive and unreasonable that I brought them to EWN, leading to a block: case is here. If you review their comments in that case, you can see that they misrepresented their own edits (and behavior) at that board, which was doubly troubling.
  • as is evident in the history of the Chronic pain article here, as recently as a couple of days ago they added a slew of COPYVIO content that had to be revdelled.

And their aggressive effort to prosecute this ANI and ignoring of feedback they are getting, is par for their WP history to date, and not promising. I am not too hopeful about their long term prospects to be productive. Which is what led me to post here.

All that said, I can't support Flyer's claim of stalking. Petergstrom has been editing religion and neuro/psych pretty consistently from the beginning and edits to the Brain article do not seem stalkerish to me.

Flyer tends to be accurate about socking but i have no real comments on that issue other than my initial one above, and that based on their behavior i wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

Petergstrom fwiw I recommend you walk away from this ANI case - you are not going to get the satisfaction you want - and instead concentrate on building high quality content (great MEDRS sources, summarized and not copied, accurately) and working better with others. Your hands are way too dirty for this case to get any traction. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yea sounds fine to me. I will ignore Flyer22 for now.Petergstrom (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Great. please keep in mind the " and working better with others" part of what i wrote :) Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am currently focusing on patrolling and editing article content, and am no longer interested in this thread, but I wanted to go ahead and note that I did not state that Petergstrom followed me to the Insomnia article, which is an article I had only edited a few times. I mentioned the Insomnia article to explain why I view Petergstrom's style of editing to be problematic and my belief that he followed me to the Human brain article. I specifically mentioned the Human brain article on the Insomnia talk page when criticizing Petergstrom's deletion style. I did not mention it as an example of a good or great article. I mentioned that it is an article I am working on, and an example of an article that no one should hastily take a hacksaw to. It needs to be edited with care. I mentioned this despite knowing the likelihood that Petergstrom would follow me there. There are few Wikipedia articles of significant interest to me that I can edit without worrying about a lot of conflict. Editing that article was something that gave me peace because there were no big disputes going on there and I knew that I could focus on bringing the article to WP:GA level, like I had been meaning to do. The article is currently full-protected, and I hope to edit it with little conflict in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: When it comes to considering whether or not I am being stalked, I do carefully examine the matter; I don't solely base it on past experiences. The past experiences do, however, significantly aid my deductions. I have an overlap with Doc James and Jytdog too, but Doc James rarely gets involved with articles like Vegetarianism or Veganism, or sexual and gender topics, and Jytdog is editing some of the articles that I edit because either I asked him to or he saw past stalking matters related to me and decided to get involved. In addition to the aforementioned articles I noted that I significantly edit, I just noticed that Petergstrom has also recently focused on the Gender article. I have significant history with that article, and with other gender topics. Having some overlap with me is understandable, but when it's articles that I significantly edit, and across a number of different fields, I think I have a valid reason to be concerned. History shows that I do. I take being hounded very seriously and will not hesitate to bring the matter to WP:ANI if I feel that I have compelling evidence of being hounded. All that stated, I am looking to resolve the Human brain article dispute and will try not to inflame matters involving Petergstrom in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I too do not want to escalate things anymore. I dont think there is anything more that I can say, other than I truly do not care about what you edit, and have no intent to hound or harass. Buuuuuuut.....all the stuff is in one field-gender is relavent in neuroscience and psychology. But that is beside the point. Bottom line is, I truly have never had, and never will have the desire to hound anyone. Petergstrom (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Experience shows that mature people who are interested in collaboration and the development of the encyclopedia are able to make complaints without the level of indignation seen in this case. If you are really interested in building content it might be an idea to focus on that, while engaging in any discussions on article talk pages in a constructive manner. And stop posting here unless it is to post new evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to concur with others that User:Petergstrom's edits in the areas of medicine and religion have been extremely problematic. One can see that User:Petergstrom edits with an agenda, promoting a non-neutral point of view; for exaxmple, he attempted to add information to our articles about Jesus and Moses, saying that they both had paranoid schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). On our article about Religiosity and intelligence, User:Petergstrom has inappropriately censored content that he just didn't like, possibly because it called into question his own POV--what's more troublesome is that he tried to conceal the nature of his edit by using a benign edit summary. This is part of a deeper problem concerning User:Petergstrom and their editing behaviour. At this time, a topic ban on articles relating to medicine and religion, broadly construed, is warranted.--Jobas (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this particular situation but I should probably mention that the last time that I saw Flyer22 get accused of "Wikihounding with false sock puppetry accusations", her sock accusations were very much correct. DarkKnight2149 23:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 by this you mean that Flyer's accusations were correct, no that the accusations against Flyer were. I'm asking because it's not 100% clear to me which one you mean. I'm guessing the former since you've linked an LTA case in which Flyer was significantly involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude I meant that the accusations that Flyer made were true, not the accusations against her. Sorry about the unintentional ambiguity in my statement. DarkKnight2149 02:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Still no response from User:Soli58. El_C 23:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for User:Petergstrom on articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed

• Support As mentioned by multiple editors above, User:Petergstrom has failed to adhere to WP:NPOV in the areas of medicine and religion, which is demonstrated by edits such as attempting to add false information to articles about historical religious figures, e.g. stating that Jesus and Moses had paranoid schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). He has also censored information that might not support his personal POV, e.g. recent diff), he also ignored the Pew research source and decide to put a POV on atheism (see here recent diff). These issues, coupled with User:Petergstrom's hounding of User:Flyer22 Reborn warrant a topic ban on all articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed.--Jobas (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Jobas, the religion additions were when I first started--one source was not enough for what I wrote. They additions weren't "false". Secondly, the recent edits on the religion and intelligence articles are actually being pushed in the direction I was attempting to push it in before your edit war( relavent info, quality sourcing).Petergstrom (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support This user's edit history is very troublesome. Mistercontributer (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that religion needs to be included here, but I've been watching the medicine issues from afar for a while, and I'm leaning towards supporting a topic ban there. I'd like to hear from a few more editors before making up my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Seeing that Petergstrom does seem to be seeking to do better, perhaps through mentoring, and that the SPI appears to have come up negative (alleged master and sock on different continents), I am now leaning oppose to a topic ban, with a strict understanding that WP:ROPE now applies. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Checking back and viewing subsequent comments and events, I'm going back to my original inclination, and I support topic bans in both topic areas. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for medicine only. I don't think we have a demonstration of contentious editing in on religion. I'm troubled by what I have read in this thread. The indignation and battle ground mentality exhibited by the OP is not encouraging.--Adam in MO Talk 04:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO this user's editing in on religion is very troublesome as well, (see /w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=747047573 Example 1, Example 2), (Example 3). Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have viewed those links and I don't think that Peter is at the level of a topic ban yet. Bad edits don't warrant a topic ban. Bad edits and battle ground behavior certainly do. Do you have any evidence of the latter?--Adam in MO Talk 16:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO I think it's bad edits and battle ground behavior, for example see here in Jesus article: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and the user demonstrates here that they are aware of the consequences of edit warring. anther example is Ignatius of Loyola article, see here (1), (2), (3). also here in Moses article (1), (2), (3). It's just some examples.--Jobas (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

JobasThose are misguided edits from a new users. No one has presented any indication that the contentious editing is ongoing. Thanks for your input. I respectfully disagree.--Adam in MO Talk 22:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO, no problems, Thanks and Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, although early on I pretty much interpreted the policies in a way the community did not generally interpret them, I have actually made some pretty decent contributions in the neuro/psych area. I understand the my lack of desire to engage with other editors has been troublesome, but I am curious as to whether my past behavior is really indicative of a future where the pros are outweighed by the cons. Petergstrom (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support for ban on religion and likely medicine. Unfortunately, I had to intervene as a mediator on a few recent edit wars on the Religiosity and Intelligence page and was a bit disturbed by some of the recent edits the editor used such as [54] when some compromise would have been the better choice during the edit war. I also found troubling that after being warned about violating the 3RR, the user deleted that information from their talk page [55]. Also, when discussing a source on atheism and religion if it was acceptable, the language seemed quite aggressive and dismissive to others when it could have been charitable including remarks telling other editors that they should not edit religious pages [56] because of them identifying with religion was POV pushing and conflict of interest on religious pages. On the 3RR noticeborad one of the edits even said "Thats 3RR, there is obviously a COI, given you user page. I don't want to have to talk this to admin board" [57], as reported by another editor User:Renzoy16. No editor should ever say to another editor those kinds of things. For medicine, it seems that the editor has been blocked twice for edit warring there too despite being on Wikipedia for only a few months. Perhaps this can be remedied if the behavior changes significantly, but it need not get this hot over religion topics.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - for all the troubling history, some of which I agree is extremely troubling, the editor in question hasn't even been here a full six months yet, at least under this name. If someone were willing to mentor him as per WP:MENTOR, it might be possible that his conduct might improve. Having said that, there does seem to be a very real issue of perhaps excessively high self-opinion regarding this editor, and if that were true it might well be that mentoring might be ineffective. John Carter (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

A CU was just performed and confirmed that I am unrelated to any of the accounts I was accused of operating. The behavioral "evidence" is weak at best.Petergstrom (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"The behavioral evidence is weak at best" You don't talk like a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

And it is also, I think, hard to imagine a relatively new user so frequently expressing outrage regarding the conduct of others, as Petergstrom has repeatedly done here. Most newer editors I've encountered are much less familiar with all the details of our policies and guidelines, and on that basis have been much less likely to indulge in such expressions of outrage. And I think most newbies would be a lot less likely to use the abbreviation "CU' as Peter does above as opposed the full term. Most wouldn't be as familiar with the abbreviations, although a person with a history of sockpuppetry would probably know it all too well. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I just came from viewing the CU page...that was how Jytdog abbreviated it, so that is how I abbreviate it....I can't believe I thought this would clear things up. Looks like no amount of evidence can change the preconceived opinions you guys have. I'm so done. Whatever.Petergstrom (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Petergstrom: you will notice that I have actually indicated that I thought mentoring you might be useful as an alternative to sanctions. And thereafter you, on no basis whatsoever so far as I can see, accuse me of having preconceived notions. Your comment, if anything, demonstrates your own biases and apparent unwillingness to deal with criticism. While I thank you for your clarification, I also believe it reasonable to note that what may well be one of your most substantial problems, an unfortunately high opinion of yourself and your regularly making at best unwarranted incivil comments to others, seems to be continuing unabated, and that cannot reflect well for you. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@John Carter: I am willing to be mentored. I am willing to work better with editors. But I currently don't see that happening right now, if, with very very limited evidence, the accusations of sock puppetry continue-with the constant threat of a ban looming, it is hard to work effectively. Petergstrom (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure I see "accusations of sockpuppetry." I see a statement from her that she might be collecting evidence for a sockpuppet investigation, which is rather a different matter entirely. There isn't a great deal anyone can do about editors doing such off-wiki - trust me on this as someone who has repeatedly been advised of collection of information against him by others. ;) On that basis, the "constant threat of a ban looming" also seems to be at least a bit of an overstatement. The best way to minimize any such risks might be to try to focus at least in the short term on some non-controversial articles and/or make a point of proposing changes on talk pages and getting support there before making them. There are a lot of WP:GNOME-like tasks which one could easily do to help make him more familiar with a broader range of content and other pages, which also might give that person a better grasp of "standard procedures" of a sort. And there are, presumably, a massive number of articles on books or authors in almost all topics which meet notability requirements but don't exist yet. Any such actions might be useful and probably less likely to lead to controversy. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Bearing in mind that "CU is not magic pixie dust", I simply don't believe this is a new editor, which is the only argument that seemed acceptable to me for not imposing a topic ban. Given that, a topic ban is quite a reasonable sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I actually see two proposed topic bans here, medicine and religion. Could you be a bit more specific about which proposal(s) you are supporting? John Carter (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I see one topic ban in the proposal, "a topic ban on all articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed." Now some people may object to one part of it or the other, and if I had wanted to do so, I would have, but my !vote was on the proposal as originally stated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and my apologies. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - (conditional) *If* Petergstrom was sincere when he said "I am willing to be mentored. I am willing to work better with editors., and *if* both sockpuppet investigations are closed without showing abusive socking (it now appears that will be the result), and *if* a volunteer can be found to mentor him on behavioral and interaction issues raised above, then a ban should be postponed. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Xenophrenic, and anyone else reading, the Petergstrom account being in a different continent does not mean that he is not Pass a Method. Keep in mind that Pass a Method was last identified in a sock investigation in 2014 and that it is now 2017. Because of statements by Pass a Method in the past, I considered that he had moved, which is why I noted that Petergstrom might be interested in having a CheckUser confirm that he is no longer in the United Kingdom. Sock investigations are not solely based on the CheckUser data; they are also based on the behavioral data. Sometimes solely on the behavioral data. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive for an example of a case where the CheckUser data was put ahead of the behavioral data and I then had to compile more behavioral data just to get the sock blocked. All that stated, if you believe that Petergstrom can be reformed, and it seems that you do, I hope that you are right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer22 – I hear you. I don't feel like I have really made up my mind about this, but I tend to think that this is a matter of WP:ROPE. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: I subsequently changed my mind, see above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support limited-time topic bans while noting that I am WP:Involved with the blocked user whose sock Petergstorm is accused of being. I'm not convinced Flyer22 got the right master, but the user's claims to be a newbie haven't convinced me either. I support the medical topic ban based on Jytdog's report of interactions above, and the religion topic ban based on this edit war in which the user uses a tabloid source to add a new section immediately after the Lead retroactively diagnosing a Catholic saint with a psychotic disorder. (The material could have been appropriate with secondary sourcing further down in the article, but not in it's own "Mental health" section without lots of high quality sources.) Also per similar bizarre edit wars on Jesus [58] and Moses [59] ~Awilley (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment While User:Petergstrom is facing a topic ban on articles related to medicine and religion, broadly construed, he just continued edit warring on one of the same articles that brought him here! I think this demonstrates that he is unwilling to change and seek guidance. I therefore support a topic ban (and probably a block) because I think it's necessary for him to slow down.--Jobas (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just wanted to show the complete list of recent aggressive edits that were made by User:Petergstrom on the Religiosity and intelligence page [60] (from February 2 2017 mainly and up to February 14 2017) . On February 2 2017, User:Petergstrom disregarded the warnings, by at least 2 editors, that he had violated the 3RR. When User:Renzoy16 made the following edit summary "Removed information is relevant; User:Petergstrom has crossed WP:3RR" User:Petergstrom reverted with the following edit summary "I took it to talk, nobody cares. In actuality you have crossed 3RR" and continued to revert despite being notified by User:Renzoy16 and User:Jobas already.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support my impression from what I find in this huge time-sink/thread is that this editor's behavior, if permitted to continue unchecked, will lead to more huge time-sink/threads on this page. I'm seeing far too much WP:IDHT and POV-pushing, and far too little respect for the viewpoints of others. Lepricavark (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support based on recent history of remarkably unilateral changes to the Religiosity and intelligence page, a pattern of behavior which I seem to remember was also characteristic of PaM. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Note: Further to Flyer's response to the Oppose (Conditional) above. this also appears to be a case where CU was taken over Behavioural.

• Support: Alongside the note above, Peter's response about taking it to talk and nobody caring? Rubbish. Why's he getting reverted if it's the case that nobody cares? Besides, why can't you move onto something else related to the topic while you wait for responses, I know pages that can take months for replies and don't complain! I think a Boomerang is in order. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 19:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support a limited-time topic ban. Peter's edits on religious topics show a tendency to make edits which are problematic for several reasons - WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:LAWYER, particularly. Working and playing well with others are core values for wikipedia editors. Giving Peter some time to think about why he's not allowed to edit in those topics is a good thing, he'll have the whole rest of wikipedia to hone his getting along with others skills. I am not persuaded by the analysis of edits presented to support the sockpuppetry accusation, but I don't need to be to support this sanction. Peter, please take advantage of the fact you're still editing at all to consider why we're doing this. Nothing personal, just WP:drop the stick, for your own sake. loupgarous (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comments: It looks to me like this ANI filing by Petergstrom was a preemptive strike, because he has clearly been stalking Flyer22 and was about to be reported at ANI for it. There is zero evidence that Flyer has harassed Petergstrom, and there is abundant evidence the other way around, and there is also substantial behavioral evidence that Petergstrom may be a sockpuppet. That said, I don't know what the correct sanction should be. At this point, it does not seem like Petergstrom is an asset to the encyclopedia.

  I will proffer some advice to Flyer22: Bad things happen when content discussions occur on usertalk pages. Stay off of usertalk pages, and in the future things like this (retaliatory stalking) will not occur. (And don't ever accuse someone of being a sockpuppet: File an SPI, or not; otherwise keep your mouth shut.) All content disputes should only ever be discussed and resolved on article-talk or project-talk. It's that simple.

  That said, I think a fairly lengthy or indefinite block for Petergstrom for disruption may be more (or equally as) appropriate than a topic ban at this point. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC); edited 01:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on both subjects. Medicine and religion are two serious fields and vandalism should be taken very seriously, especially there. Unfortunately we seem to be giving too much leeway for an editor who has not demonstrated that they deserve an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. I don't see their use here after all this drama. I would also promote a lengthy block as an appropriate response to this behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both topic bans for six months (or indefinitely, appealable in six months). User has made too many sweeping unexplained or inadequately explained changes to articles in both of these areas even after this topic ban was proposed. Softlavender (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I want to say that I acknowledge that my aggressive edit behavior has been a problem. I am working on improving my interaction with other editors here. I realize that I put myself in this mess, as I being an aggressive editor was the reason I was accused of being a sock. I hope that my recent(week or so) editing history reflects this change. Petergstrom (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of either temporary or indefinite nature. There seems to be a core deficit in this user's understanding of WP:WEIGHT that is particularly problematic in light of the major scientific and religious articles they often choose to contribute to, and this issue is further exacerbated by proclivity to edit warring and general inability to approach the consensus process and outcomes in the right way. There's also hints of WP:IDHT, although if we credit the the post by Peter immediately above as representative of his mindset, this may be changing for the better. Still, I think removal from these topic areas, giving him time to internalize some critical policies in other areas, is in order; afterwards, he will be better prepared to contribute constructively in those areas, it is to be hoped--whether that means appealing an indefinite TBAN or just waiting out the temporary one. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation

For those wondering why I have called Petergstrom a sock or what evidence I have, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I must give you props for the compilation of information on all of this. I am sure it took lots of time to collect. I also looked at Jytdog's comments on another sockpuppet investigation. I agree with Jytdog that the initial edits show some familiarity with how Wikipedia is used. Also the familiarity with some WP policy, including sort of frequent use of noticeborads - which most Wikipedians never really use, strikes me as not dealing with a someone new to wikipiedia. The edits mentioned by Flyer22 Reborn do show some similarity in style to some other past accounts such as the outlining style and similar interests in medicine and religion. I am inclining to agree that some sort of sockpuppetry may be at play. Normally, new editors learn some lesson after being blocked, but the recurrent blocking and alerting that has occurred from other editors seems to show experience with the process and also how to make a defense for it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Behavioral data (analysis of the putative sock's edits) in this case strike me as equivocal, and don't establish or exclude sockpuppetry. That user might be a former user other than Petergstrom. If the CheckUser contradicts the behavioral data, WP:ROPE is indicated, not sockpuppetry sanctions. I'd hate the project to rely on subjective impressions over less equivocal evidence such as CheckUser when imposing sanctions of any sort against anyone. That's what the analysis of the behavioral evidence in this case looks like to me. loupgarous (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I second everything said by loupgarous, behavioural evidence is always 'balance of probability', in this case I am only persuaded of 'possibility' (on the strength of what has been presented to date).Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, with regard to the comments of both. I've been following this matter since it surfaced here, but mostly reserving comment until I could see whether more substantial evidence may arise, but at this point it is pretty clear that we do not have enough information to make the community comfortable on acting on Flyer's suspicions. The SPI checkuser shows that Petergstrom edits from an entirely different continent than the user Flyer22 Reborn has accused them of being a sock of, and does not use a proxy. Flyer's theory that they could have moved to another continent and resumed editing since, while inside the realm of possibility, is a rather large presumption to make on the basis of some behavioural correlations, most of them superficial; even with a number of them, its all circumstantial and open enough to interpretation that I don't see it as possible that the community would sanction a user on those suspicions alone. In fact, I dare say it is only the degree of respect that Flyer commands in the community that has kept this thread afloat despite the lack of more concrete evidence. I'm no more comfortable about saying that her suspicions are groundless (especially in light of the kind of disruption/harassment previously threatened by the suggested sockmaster), but I'm not going to support any sanction for socking on the basis of what I've seen here and at the SPI.

I'd add also, for Flyer's benefit, that if she is correct in her assessment, she might reconsider her approach here. If this really is a user who threatened to come back and pull her chain/generally troll the project, then the depth of her reaction is certainly precisely the response such an obsessive/socially broken person would be here to elicit. If this really is Pass A Method, then every diff and every line in those voluminous comparative posts of Flyer's is a victory, because this is all a game to them anyway; they are here to bait one person in particular, and every moment spent responding to that bait provokes a gleeful response in such an easily amused troll lamebrain. And I'm not saying that Flyer should ignore the matter altogether--clearly that is not a pragmatic option either, especially in light of this thread. But I do think that, if she is absolutely convinced this is a sock of her old troll nemesis, she should consider what is to be gained by such a heavy response to them. If she is correct, then she is rewarding them with exactly what they want, and even if she succeeds in unmasking them, it will only lead to a pause while this user reconsiders their tactics and comes back again; indeed, it's clear from PAM's previous comments that the challenge of having to do so is part of their petty little thrill in this area. WP:DENY is the best tactic in these circumstances, in light of the fact that the topic ban proposed above is likely to succeed. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for a close, please

I've brought this back from being bot-archived because there are propsoals here that need admin eyes and an admin's closure. Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: The sock case is also marked as closed (also see here). I've heard everyone out and appreciate their time on attempting to resolve these issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Overturn Rfc restarted

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

---

After somebody closed the previous thread, a rather interesting way of dealing with off-topic comments, per the closing editor's comment[61] let's try it again. Recently an editor pointed out to me that a certain blog discussed a revert of mine, while specifically linking to my Wikipedia and Facebook profiles. The writer of that block called people to "create an account, learn the site’s rules, and push back vigorously against those who would defame or delegitimize the Jewish people on the world’s largest online encyclopedia". In the ensuing discussion he also said "I have already brought this matter to the attention of a number of Jewish and pro-Israel groups. I still have a few more to go, but needless to say this problem WILL be dealt with". After that article, which also linked to Category:Jews, we had various single purpose IP editors or editors who were inactive till recently, who have tried to change that category page.[62][63][64][65][66][67] Two editors tried to do the same on some other category and related pages. User:Jeffgr9: [68][69][70][71] I reverted him and warned him on his talkpage,[72] but he decided to edit war about it:[73][74][75][76] And User:The Human Trumpet Solo: [77][78][79][80][81] He also decided to edit war about it after he participated in the thread above and was aware of all warnings:[82][83][84][85][86]

Because of the obvious connection between the blog article and the edit on the category page and the related edits mentioned above, I decided to do some research. The Rfc on Category talk:People of Jewish descent, which is related to this issue, turns out to have been loaded with WP:MEAT: User:ChronoFrog is a blocked sock, User:Bubbecraft never edited after that discussion, User:Musashiaharon made only 8 edits between that discussion and this WP:ANI issue, User:2603:3024:1818:3B00:CCF9:AFE5:1187:21BE was a one-edit account, and User:PA Math Prof made no edits between that Rfc and this WP:ANI issue. My conclusion is that it is likely to the degree of certainty that the Rfc was decisively influenced by either socks or trumped up editors, probably in much the same way as the blog describes. The 5 editors I mentioned here all voted "keep", and should be disqualified. That would leave the Rfc with only 2 "keep"s against 7 "remove"s.

A few more points regarding the closure of that Rfc, which add to my opinion that it should be overturned: 1. The survey shows that opinions were evenly balanced, 7:7, so the closure should have been "No consensus for any changes, keep as is". 2. It was a first-time closure by a non-admin, User:Eggishorn. 3. The closing statement is internally inconsistent, claiming at the same time that the conclusion of the discussion was to keep the category and to maintain a consensus version, but failing to notice that the consensus version since 2013 had been to not to have the category. 4. In addition there is the WP:MEAT issue which I raised in this WP:ANI thread. 5. All of this is in addition to the fact that I think the closing editor was wrong to have ignored many of the Wikipedia policy and guidelines related issues I mentioned in the survey section of the Rfc, which I won't go into here, but I do want to stress that I really really think the closing editor made the wrong call, even without the WP:MEAT issue which obviously was impossible to be aware of at the time. Based on all the above, I think the Rfc should be overturned. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that concise explanation of the issue that got lost in the previous thread. I would like to hear from other experienced editors bearing in mind that we are NOT here to re-argue the RfC but are strictly considering the circumstances of the close including the possibility that the RfC may have been prejudiced by off-wiki WP:CANVASSING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• I participated in the "Survey" that (I think) occurred after the close. In particular I remember that the closer gave a great deal of weight to cited sources which, as was outlined there, did not, in fact support the position claimed and I was quite confused with their reasoning considering the weight of other arguements. This was clearly not an RfC to cut one's teeth on and should have been left to a more experienced closer and when challenged it should probably have been reopened. The evidence of MEAT presented above is also a concern and, in my mind, further delegitimizes the result.

  I would suggest that someone uninvolved work with both "sides" to come up with a well formed RfC and run it again. The existing discussions are nothing consensus can be drawn from. I would also strongly suggest that as part of crafting the RfC that the excessively 'vocal' editors on each side each make a !vote statement and then retire to the sidelines - in particular avoid repeatedly responding to one another. We all know what these editors' opinions are on the issue and an RfC is to get new opinions. These editors are experts in the topic but the back and forth bludgeoning serves no good purpose.

  TL;DR I think the last RfC was flawed. A new, well formed and widely published RfC should be run. Jbh ^Talk 03:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser continues to violate WP:AGF and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, despite many, many sources proving him and those who joined him on the RfC and the survey opinions wrong (such editors include Sir Joseph and Bus stop—who have also both violated Wikipedia:Don't be rude, Wikipedia:Nothing is clear, and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT on here (in the above "Jewish Category" argument), and in other forums). Users User:Musashiaharon, User:Bubbecraft, User:PA Math Prof, and User:The Human Trumpet Solo have participated in more than several Jewish-related Wikipedia Talk page conversations and provided many valid sources during the survey and RfC in question. In addition, User:Eggishorn seems eminently qualified as a Wikipedia editor to make a decision as a third-party, given the number of edits they have made, and the range/scope of them. User:Debresser accuses me of edit warring, which I have not done; I cited my reasons for reverting each time and respected the WP:3RR; in fact, Debresser has violated the WP:3RR on multiple occasions on this and similar subjects.

In addition, the RfC decision to keep the category "Middle Eastern people of Asian descent"/"Asian people of Middle Eastern descent," for Jews—as is also for Arabs, [Arab/]Palestinians, Syrians, etc.—depended on the survey, which surely depended on the strengths of the arguments, not the number of people voting. It would seem that Debresser and/or Sir Joseph may be supplmentally violating of WP:CANVASSING and/or Wikipedia:Vote stacking and as User:The Human Trumpet Solo noted, WP:FORUMSHOP.

I understand that the topic of Jewish identity remains complex—as it does for any Ethnocultural/racial/Tribal group's identity—however, in this case, Jews are predominantly a Semitic (Afroasiatic, Southwest Asian/West Asian, "Middle Eastern," North-Northeast African (see also Dead Sea Transform), etc.) Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious Tribe and "People of Color" (see: Visible minority, which includes West Asians, [as of whom most Jews qualify]), Indigenous to Eretz Y'Israel (the Land of Israel, the region of Canaan). To deny Jews' Semitic/"Middle Eastern" origins would mean to deny Jews' heritage in general.

Furthermore, people tend to bring up new members of the Tribe, or "converts," during these conversations; my opinion is that such members are "adopted" and intersect their previous ethnic identity with that of Jews' Semitic identity; and their descendants will have increasingly Semitic Ethnocultural/sociopolitical status if they continue to practice Jewish/Semitic traditions/culture/language/philosophies/etc. and there are other Tribes in the world who practice this same "adoption" sentiment and whose ethnic identities do not always depend on blood quantum. Either way, the sentiment that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is still widely held in the Jewish community. That is one of the reasons why Jews refer to "converts" as Bat Sarah and Bar Avraham. In any respect, "converts" often follow the same geographic/sociopolitical pathways that ethnic Jews follow, and often have to face the same racism that ethnic Jews face for being Jews (a.k.a. Anti-Semitism; therefore, new members and their descendants carry a new Middle Eastern sociopolitical identity in addition to their previous genetic-ethnic identity.

The editors who do not want the categories added to People of Jewish descent, mentioned above, seem to want to ignore all the evidence provided by various editors because it does not match their world view, and have violated various Wikipedia rules to do so. Todah Rabah (Many Thanks). Jeffgr9 (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9 please be careful in your posts. The above comment comes very close to a personal attack. It would be helpful if everyone made an effort to assume good faith on everyone elses part. Further, as I noted in my above comment, we are NOT here to rehash the RfC. That is a rabbit hole down which we are not going. It can be done elsewhere if the RfC is overturned and a new one posted. Please confine your comments to the circumstances surrounding the close of the RfC. This goes for everyone else too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ad Orientem, I appreciate the response. I did not mean what I said as a personal attack, just as what I have experienced on this forum and during previous encounters with all named editors (negative or positive). I also just wanted to explain my position and why the RfC does not need to be reopened. Finally, if the RfC were reopened—I would recommend it be dependent on a survey instead, as User:The Human Trumpet Solo suggested above, because then the strength of the arguments would matter more than just the number of votes needed to win, something I would also hope Zero might consider as well. Thank you very much, again. Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9, thank you for your clarification. I appreciate it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this isn't the forum. Indeed, on the face of it, a rather problematic RfC closure which raises additional questions. El_C 05:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C What was problematic about the closure in your opinion? Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There dosen't seem to have been consensus, and the appearance of users with very few edits is also a concern. El_C 06:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, El_C. I think the initial lack of consensus was the purpose of the survey, so that the strength of the arguments could be the main factor, as opposed to just a normal RfC. The strength of arguments for "keep" was found in favor over "remove." It also seems that there was only 1-2 confirmed users with few edits. Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to just reopen it, since so many are taking issue with the closure. El_C 11:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C Only (literally) a few editors seem to take issue with the closure, and they were on the "remove" side. Jeffgr9 (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I took another look at the article which Debresser suggests influenced the survey. Given that the survey was closed on 2 January 2017, it's impossible that an article published 17 February 2017 could have affected it in any way. In any case, the survey was closed based on the arguments and the sources (or lack of sources) of each side, rather than on the tally of !votes.Musashiaharon (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Debresser was alleging that the cited off wiki CANVASSING directly influenced the RfC. He states that it motivated him to look into who was !voting and found evidence of WP:MEAT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem & Musashiaharon, I just looked at DeBresser's cited references for "single purpose" users, and it appears that three of the users he cited were not in fact "single purpose" users, but Musashiaharon and User:Bellezzasolo, as well as User:2601:84:4502:61ea:e492:db5f:b7aa:eb86, who made more than several edits prior to the category in question. And it also seems that Debresser's prior accusation of sockpuppetry against User:ChronoFrog does not hold because the same user revealed themselves to be User:2601:84:4502:61ea:e492:db5f:b7aa:eb86 on DeBresser's wall. So, what is Debresser's evidence of WP:MEAT, other than possibly two "single purpose" editors that he mentions (out of nine total editors mentioned in the above passage, seven of whom are neither "single purpose," nor sock puppets)? Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what can be mandated by this board, but I'd like to suggest: reopen the RfC with a strict total word limit for each contributor and administrator-only closing. Zero^talk 05:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

the IP user is me. I didnt have an account back then. I commented on the survey because it caught my attention. why am I being reported over this? P.s. sorry if my english is bad the IP user is me. I didnt have an account back then. I commented on the survey because it caught my attention. why am I being reported over this? P.s. sorry if my english is bad. Vaporwaveaesthetic (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Which IP user were you, Vaporwaveaesthetic? Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

176.251.119.35 is me - I failed to login. After User:Debresser reverted based on me being an IP, I realized my mistake. With the most recent changes, User:Sir Joseph reverted my addition of a commented out inclusion of the category in dispute to try and discourage further edit warring.Bellezzasolo (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I didn't revert because you edited as an IP, but okay. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Old RfC—Proposal for new RfC. El_C 11:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think it was premature to open a discussion about a new Rfc. In addition, I strongly feel there is no need for a new Rfc. After removing the WP:MEAT from the bones, the previous Rfc reached a clear conclusion of 7 against 2 editors to keep the status quo and not have the additional category. Even if some of the 5 editors would be considered legitimate, something I think would be a mistake, there is still a clear consensus against. That is in addition to all the other arguments. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Debresser, I just found out above only 1 editor has not been accounted for a later edit that you reverted for your claim of WP:MEAT (outside of the RfC/survey). That makes 8 out of 9 editors whom you mentioned in this thread who agree to "keep" the category/categories of Middle Eastern people of Asian descent/Asian people of Middle Eastern descent, and not to "remove" it/them. And please do not violate Wikipedia:Nothing is clear/Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in this forum. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I think it is very important we hear from the closing editor, User:Eggishorn. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is important to hear from User:Eggishorn. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see below, about 4 paragraphs (assuming no interposing edits) down. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Musashiaharon has posted on my talkpage,[87] and honestly admits that his point of view on this issue is politically influenced and determined. That is an additional argument to disqualify him from the old Rfc (and any future Rfc, which ceterum censeo is not needed). Debresser (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, your claim of "politically" influenced/determined against Musashiaharon's response on your talk page is not what Musashiaharon meant when they posted on your talk page—as evidenced by their response to your having expressed your above response to their response here. By continuously trying to invalidate multiple non-sock puppet, non-single-purpose editors' perspectives (which are, by the contrary, very valid) here, you seem to want to strongarm this discussion into a conclusion in your favor instead of listening to what the admins and other editors have to say. It makes the issue more about how you Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:Just drop it the survey's outcome and not about the actual issue. Again, I do not mean this as a personal attack, but as an observation from what is happening here and related forums. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9, please assume some good faith. I am seriously worried by the pattern of politically motivated edits, which is precisely what this post is about, if you paid attention to my first post. I raise this point for admins to express their opinion, while at the same time not hiding my own opinion. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, I believe you should assume good faith as well, instead of focusing on trying to invalidate other editors' perspectives in this forum; such perspectives may even conflict with your own, but they also may contain essential academic value to add to Wikipedia articles/categorizations/edits. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Eggishorn has been conspicuously absent throughout this... El_C 18:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

In actuality, @Debresser:, I don't think my input is necessary or dispositive in any real sense. I closed the original RfC in policy, as endorsed by the only admin and uninvolved editors to participate in the AN thread. I remain confident that close accurately summarized that RfC as it was when I closed it. A raft of other issues have been raised, such as the above claims of canvassing and meatpuppeting, but these were not evident at that time or raised in the immediate aftermath and so I have no opinion on those later issues. Though there have been personal attacks on my honesty, my competence, and my overall integrity starting with that thread, I do not feel it would be productive to respond and so I haven't. There were no evidence or policy-based claims for one "side" of the debate when I closed the RfC and that hasn't changed. Any re-opening of that RfC or starting of a new RfC on the same subject is a discussion for others and I won't be involved.

As to my "conspicuous" absence, @El C: I didn't feel my presence was going to contribute anything and don't think that there is any requirement for it. I did participate in the initial challenge to the close where the argument was essentially that one group, [s]imply believ[ed] a closure is wrong, even where reasonable people would have closed a discussion differently which ...is not sufficient for requesting review. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. The question now, after the fact, is inferring the consensus: a re-closure, or a new RfC, may be in order. El_C 18:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

While not hiding that I am the first to hold that the close was indeed incorrect, and I can not understand how you can defend it still, I am mainly interested in knowing if you think that serious WP:MEAT concerns as the ones raised here would have been likely to change have changed your view of the Rfc, had you been aware of them at the time. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser:, I believe I have said most of what needs to be said. The challenges of the close have mostly fallen into three categories: personal attacks or accusations of bias, complaints that I am not an admin, and arguments rehashing the original RfC. I don't see anything above that demands my input as a useful addition to the discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as I use Wiki-accepted RS, my personal opinions should not matter. If personal opinions automatically disqualified editors as Debresser suggests, no Jew would be allowed to write about Judaism or Jews. Musashiaharon (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Everybody has a POV and that is completely legitimate. What is not legitimate is letting that POV knowingly influence your editing. Something you admitted to. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The letter I wrote to Debresser was an attempt to arrive at a common understanding, and I was open to being convinced by him. But he betrayed my good faith and twisted it into a personal attack. It really pains me that a fellow Jew would do such a thing.

Debresser writes as if he is completely impartial, but his actions speak otherwise. Normally, an impartial editor would recognize that lots of RS is weightier than no RS, accept the survey closure, and move on to something else. Instead, he disruptively reverted edits complying with the closure, even posting a repressive warning on my talk page after a single such edit, and he opened up a review on the survey closure. After even that didn't yield his desired result, he forum shopped and opened the thread above, using the excuse of a blog article published after the survey closed to claim CANVASSING affected the survey, without any other real evidence. When due to lack of new content the above thread was closed, he himself opened up this thread. This whole saga is nearly half a year long. All these edits show that his opinions themselves are quite partial to a particular POV, and by his own arguments, he should be disqualified himself. In contrast, I never forum shopped, I never violated 3RR, and I never tried to deceive and intimidate others from editing, the way he and Sir Joseph did on my talk page. Given his and Sir Joseph's disruptive editing, I regret to request that they both be topic banned until they cool down. Musashiaharon (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, Musashiaharon did not violate POV, but your false analysis to try to discredit Musashiaharon for the sake of trying to "win" this ANI, however, does. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem I find this last comment to be out of line. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Case in point, Debresser, I did not mean what I said as a personal attack against you, but as an observation of what you are currently doing to Musashiaharon (based on how they expressed how they felt about what you did here on your talk page) and to other editors in this discussion, and now to me. I only want an honest, civil discussion between all perspectives involved, and I did not appreciate your trying to get rid of Musashiaharon's perspective from this discussion. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is a waste of time. As the RFC was to remove cats that have been there for a long time, even if people wanted to disregard the better evidence-based arguments of the keep voters, the alternative is 'no consensus' which would result in... not having the cats removed as there is clearly no consensus to remove them. We dont re-run RFCs from the beginning just because one side doesnt like the result. Unless either side can magically drum up lots of editors who care about Jew-categorisation, or the remove faction can actually find an argument that doesnt revolve around attempting to disqualify the opposition, let this go already as it is only dragging out the same result. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary: the category had been absent for over 3 years by the time the Rfc was closed! Debresser (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I refuse to believe that you are willing to endorse a result that was obtained by drumming up editors to willingly influence its outcome. That is something Wikipedia should not allow. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9 has expressed a similar POV on my talkpage as Musashiaharon.[88] He is evidently emotional about this. The question is if where the fine line goes that divides between just having a POV or making edits and taking stances because of that POV. On the one hand we can't disqualify editors for having a POV, when however they admit that their edits are because of that POV, that is where IMHO the line should be drawn. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, I was civilly disagreeing with a statement you made to Musashiaharon on your talk page, and trying to inquire as to whether you understood the factual perspective that other editors may have regarding this issue. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"He is evidently emotional"? Have you been reading a handbook on gaslighting or something? This went to an RFC. It was closed in line with policy and guidance. The RFC had a closure review where no one actually raised any legitimate argument for overturning it other than 'I dont agree with it'. If this is meant to be another close challenge, then you need to provide some evidence rather than just making personal jibes at other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, Debresser, given that every editor has some POV, the first step to writing objectively is to identify one's own POV, and make sure that this does not skew the final result. Thus I never used political or religious arguments in the survey; whenever I cited a religious source, it was always in the context of understanding the traditionally strong Jewish cultural ties to the Middle East, and that usage was justifiable WP:RS. This was only possible because I examined myself and carefully separated what was a valid argument on WP and what was not. RS is a valid argument; WP: IDONTLIKEIT is not. Musashiaharon (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

But if the true ratio of editors on both sides of the dispute was 7:2, then "closed in line with policy and guidance" amounts to an oversight. And must be reexamined. El_C 19:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, the ratio of editors, as I noted above, was not what Debresser claimed here. Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If true, I'm making the point. El_C 20:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Not really sure where you are getting 7:2. There are at least 6 editors accounted for on the keep side, and if we are discounting blocked users, User:FoCuSandLeArN has also been blocked for paid editing. Hence the tally, if we cared, really stands at 6:6 after removing the banned users. However, in the survey itself, there is no sign of foul play, and the closers (who were extremely patient, despite the harassment from the remove side) judged by arguments and sources, not vote tallies, in accord with Wiki policy. Without any new arguments, there is no need to reopen, and this is just another case of forum shopping. Musashiaharon (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If it's true that you yourself only "made only 8 edits between that discussion and this WP:ANI issue," then you can see where I'm starting to get 7:2. El_C 11:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus which would default to keeping the categories. It was a close RfC, and the arguments for keep are arguably better, but the meatpuppetry allegations are concerning if difficult to prove. Having editors who main editing history is only on/largely surrounding disputes surrounding controversies surrounding Jews/Jewish-related topics as an cursory glance at the contributions of the editors raised here is enough for me to think that the complaint might have some validity. It is not enough, however, for me to think that the RfC should be overturned to the opposite result. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, Thank you for your response as well. The allegations of WP:MEAT, however, do not seem to have a complete basis in fact, as I noted above. Only 1 editor out of 9 mentioned editors by Debresser, who made a revert after the RfC/survey decision was reached, has been unaccounted as of yet. The rest of the editors have been consistent contributors with no sockpuppetry. Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong: "no consensus" would mean keep the way it was, and the extra category was absent for over 3 years. WP:BURDEN would lead to the same conclusion. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

One of the accounts accounted for by an IP is a CU blocked sock. There is also an account with both red user and talk page commenting here trying to help account for the IPs. Bellezzasolo has less than 200 edits, long absences between editing, and when they come back, they edit in discussions involving Jewish topics and their userpage. PA Math Prof also mainly edits in sprints surrounding controversial Jewish topics, and their edit before the comment on the RfC was to create a userpage, which is a common tactic for abusers of multiple accounts because they realize the anti-red-link bias that some on Wikipedia have. Bubbecraft's sole contribution before the RfC was to add claims about terrorism to a Palestinian human rights activist BLP as links that were reverted. After they commented on the RfC, they created a userpage very similar to PA Math Prof. Sorry, this accounting for accounts looks like it could easily be a case of off-wiki canvassing of meatpuppets or even socking. I'm more inclined now to even support overturning to the opposite consensus rather than no consensus. Also, Debresser is right, the burden does appear to be on those attempting to keep not those trying to remove. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, I would like to bring up some contrary points to your response:

ChronoFrog (the account to which I think you refer in the first line) may be "blocked," but not at the time of the RfC and Survey; that user also explained on Debresser's talk page the reason for their abandoning their username was to detract Anti-Semitic harassment by certain Wikipedia editors (Passage/Paragraph 8).

User:Bellezzasolo made significant edits, although that editor had less edits in quantity than that of more experienced editors; I think condemning Bellezzasolo for being new would violate Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

I understand you may have experience with people who try to deceive others on Wikipedia for the purposes of trying to win arguments. However, there is no apparent evidence given here or otherwise linking User:PA Math Prof to any sockpuppets.

User:Bubbecraft provided significant sources and arguments during the RfC; but again, there is no evidence of meat puppetry in their instance. In fact, PA Math Prof started editing in 2015 and created their user page in October 2016, and thus appears to be a newer user than Bubbecraft, who started editing in 2013 and created their user page September 2016. I would not assume any relation at all, but rather, as both users became more active in 2016 during the RfC/survey period (a long time), they added to their profiles. They also have different occupations, personal interests, and narratives. To assume otherwise would be to not WP:AGF.

Finally, again, the original RfC was channeled into a survey, for which the arguments and evidence would be counted more than the number of editors who !voted, and that was how the RfC was decided (by a third party)—by the strength of the arguments, not the number of people voting. So, it seems the accusations of meatpuppetry only serve to confuse this forum from the facts presented in the actual RfC and survey.

Also, in any case, the "burden of evidence" was significantly provided, and that was what, again, caused the decision of the RfC/survey to be in favor of "keep." Thank you very much for your consideration. Jeffgr9 (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The main problem I have with this dispute being dragged out is that even if there was any sound evidence in support of Debresser's canvassing allegations, the keep side's arguments were still stronger overall (see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). And contrary to Debresser's earlier claims, I did provide RS. Loads of it. The remove side provided nothing. I'd be open to revisiting the RFC if reasoned and well sourced counter arguments to the keep side's posts are presented, but so far I have not seen any of that: just a lot of kicking and screaming (and conspiracy theories).The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this should be taken into consideration as well.

Both users (Debresser and Sir Joseph) are aware of what the RFC and survey outcome were on this category, along with what it entails for the existing structure of related categories. However, both have persisted in edit warring (see 1 and 2), reverting and antagonizing users who restored the appropriate categories in accordance with the survey outcome (see 3 and 4), made blatantly dishonest claims in justifying their reverts (see 5, the opening survey statement, and its closure), and attempted to game the system to implement their preferred changes (see 5). Sir Joseph is, as of today, attempting to the restart the same discussion by phrasing it in a slightly different manner. This constitutes disruptive editing and, at least to me, suggests that neither of these users should be editing on topics relating to Jewish descent or ethnic identity, as they are both clearly incapable of leaving their personal feelings out of it. I think a topic ban for both editors is an appropriate solution, but I'll leave that up to you.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Debresser&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sir+Joseph&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Musashiaharon#February_2017

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeffgr9#Please_stop

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=766856773#Category:People_of_Jewish_descentThe Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That seems rather hasty. They might have gotten impatient, but we're not going to neglect the issues they've raised: possible MEAT, SPA, and Socking crucially involved. El_C 22:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, There does not seem to be any evidence of WP:MEAT. Jeffgr9 (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That's where my comment is: paint me confused. There seems to be strong evidence of SPAs being canvassed, however. El_C 11:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm taking the liberty of closing this thread, because it is developing the same problems as the other endless thread on the exact same topic. Any admin may overturn my close, but otherwise in my opinion the only obvious solution to this endless discussion is my advice in the close box. Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

7:3 ratio?

The Rfc on Category talk:People of Jewish descent, which is related to this issue, turns out to have been loaded with WP:MEAT: User:ChronoFrog (Contributions) is a blocked sock, User:Bubbecraft (Contributions) never edited after that discussion, User:Musashiaharon made only 8 edits between that discussion and this WP:ANI issue, User:2603:3024:1818:3B00:CCF9:AFE5:1187:21BE (Contributions) was a one-edit account, and User:PA Math Prof (Contributions) made no edits between that Rfc and this WP:ANI issue.

That's the possible 7:2 7:3 ratio I'm referring to is based on (strikeout are my emphasis—contributions added by me). El_C 11:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion that is not really the fault of the closer, because no indication was provided that that had occurred. My detailed advice in the close of this thread will eliminate that problem in a new RfC. Softlavender (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that no fault should be attributed to the closer—my point is about it invalidating the closure. I agree with your own close and hope a new RfC will resolve this. El_C 12:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, to get a consensus here to overturn the closure of that RfC might take as much or more work than creating a new one that is devoid of SPAs and canvassed people. The discussion above to overturn it seemed to be getting nowhere because the editors who approve of the close were hijacking the discussion. So it seems a fresh RfC would be the answer, unless an admin (you?) wants to simply unilaterally step in and re-close the previous one (considering the improper !votes). I agree that an overturn would be simpler, but only if it were done via a quick admin action rather than an endless discussion about it. Softlavender (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, I have re-closed as no consensus. Thereby bringing this long, drawn-out saga to a resolution. El_C 12:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Editing behavioral problems by User:Kazaro

The following discussion is closed. 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 noticed since two days ago that User:Kazaro has been editing a bunch of GMA Network related articles and replacing the word "a" to "an" in the articles' introductory sentence. (Ex: "Encantadia is an Filipino fantasy television series by GMA Network." - see edit here). His reason was the words "Philippine" and "Filipino" sounded like a vowel and he even cited two US shows (The 100 (TV series) and The Fosters (2013 TV series)) that uses the word "an" to its introductory sentence. I have already talked to him through User:Oripaypaykim's talk page (see discussion here), since Oripaypaykim reverted Kazaro's edits and the latter posted a warning to the former, but he is keep on insisting that we should use the word "an" to those articles, even if it is grammatically incorrect (both verbal and written) and he cannot provide a proper source or an instance that the word "an" was used for "Philippine" or "Filipino". Kindly advise what should be the approach on this dispute. Kazaro will most likely engage in an edit war to revert back what he have edited. Thank you. -WayKurat (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't really list here preemptively to an edit war (anyway, for that there's AN3), but I left the user a note. El_C 09:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:CEngelbrecht2

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

---

CEngelbrecht2 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting the Aquatic ape hypothesis, something that the general scientific community views with skepticism, but stop short of calling "fringe". The problem is that CEngelbrecht2 is extremely zealous in his belief in said hypothesis, and has been extremely uncivil and condescending towards editors skeptical of the hypothesis (diffs will be categorized and provided below) at Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis and the FT/N, usually comparing the other editors to geocentrists and himself and his fellow believers to Galileo Galilei.

He was warned by Bishonen (talk · contribs), but only replied by comparing himself to Giordano Bruno, a medieval advocate of the heliocentric universe who was executed for unrelated heresy, then went on to post a polemical rant on the fringe theories noticeboard. At this point,it seems more like he's just trolling rather than actually trying to be helpful.

Diffs:

Translated: "We need to challenge any source, that makes the peasantry realize, that the aquatic idea isn't unreasonable!"

It's really uncomfortable looking through Galileo's telescope, innit?

They were discussed, and a consensus was indeed reached. But that wasn't good enough, 'cause rules don't apply, if you suddenly feel like looking through Galileo's telescope.

The only issue is, that an actual encyclopedic article on this grossly misrepresented topic would force you to look through Galileo's telescope. And that makes you sociologically uncomfortable.

Take note of all of this nonsense, 'cause we're dab stab in the middle of a paradigm shift.

I can only see that one sin has been committed by the aquatic ideas to leave it so brutalized: That they're not wrong when expected to be. I can't put into words just how frustrating and depressing it is to observe that aspect of human psychology. I cannot see how we have moved a single step since the days of Copernicus.

I am requesting the community impose nothing less than a topic ban. While a block at this point would be preventative rather than punative, it would be pointless unless it was an indef. A temporary block, even if it lasted until the current fire dies down, wouldn't do because he'd likely just light it again the moment it expires.

That being said, I would also support any other sanctions against him, whether stronger or weaker.

74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Notified. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can only see you demand, that I fall in line. (I don't understand how I notify the user.) CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to notify anybody, CEngelbrecht2; the notification requirement is only for when you create a new report on this board. IP, the Aquatic ape hypothesis is a fringe topic, and CEngelbrecht2 has been alerted to the arbcom sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe topics. Also I warned them sharply yesterday that they were getting close to a topic ban on account of their personal attacks, relentless repetitiousness, and nasty tone.[89] Any admin — me, for instance — can topic ban them if they don't clean up their act, so I don't see much need for a community topic ban at this juncture. The community bans are more cumbersome. CEngelbrecht2's contributions to Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis after my warning admittedly don't show great awareness of how close they are to a ban, but for my part I'm not ready to topic ban just yet. Of course anybody who wants to support the idea of a community ban is free to weigh in below. Bishonen | talk 15:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

What is it you expect of me? Applaud years of gross censorship and misrepresentation of a divisive topic? You want to ban me for keep speaking up about complete neglect of encyclopedic principles, just because a majority feels like it? That is Thrasymachus in a nutshell. How can I not see parables with the likes of Bruno? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, if you bring up the conduct of another editor in an existing discussion and that editor is not either already notified or an existing participant, it's generally accepted you should notify them. This doesn't apply here but I just want to explain that even if you aren't starting a new thread you need to consider notification requirements. Nil Einne (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Case in point: his two responses to this thread. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

When the response to David Attenborough for informing on the updates on all this was just a snorting "wishful thinking" and "he is irrelevant," I'm sorry, we can't trust the majority to be impartial. It's an academic scandal, that this is still to be treated as pseudoscience. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least they seem to confine their activities to the talk page for the time being, rather than POV'ing in the article; that's a plus. On the other hand, the grandstanding/persecution complex verbiage is at best annoying and at worst disruptive, and should stop. (That article is actually rather inclusive at the moment, and if anything needs a dose of further qualifiers, e.g. in the 'vernix' section - without a functional connection to adaptive features, the existence of a homoplasy proves exactly zip.) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The suggested function of both human and harbour seal vernix in newborns is additional insulation in water to increase the chances of survival for the first few hours of the infant's life. In case you're wondering. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no indication that it actually has this function, so a connection is lacking. Anyway, content issue - let's not discuss this here.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, no indication. 'Cause fat doesn't insulate in water. Nothing to note from the only other known species where newborns are covered in fat is harbour seals, an aquatic. Nothing to see here. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Were you born with flippers? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

'Cause we all know, that the aquatic ideas are arguing human beings being old mermaids. It's not a perfectly rational idea about us being old tropical beach apes, no, no. Animal Planet is all we need, don't have to read what's actually being suggested. It's so much easier to read a cartoon with Charles Darwin depicted as a chimp than to actually spell your way through On The Origin of Species. We know what this is all about, even though we don't. Let's just have a cheap laugh while fondling ourselves at better peoples' expense. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Enough. If you guys don't stop this off-topic bickering, I'm going to start thinking about taking admin action myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Topic banned. "Fondling ourselves at better peoples' expense"? That's it. Apparently my warning made no impression on CEngelbrecht2 at all. I've topic banned them for six months from Aquatic ape hypothesis and related pages, broadly construed. CEngelbrecht2, before you come back with a zinger about censorship, do please look up WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means. You're no longer allowed to discuss your favorite hypothesis on any page, including ANI and your own talkpage, other than to appeal the topic ban. You are of course allowed to do that, and the notice I have posted on your page tells you the ways and venues you can do it in. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

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

Ehm...

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

---

Just received this on my talk page. Sounds like a pretty clear confirmation of my earlier assumption; WP:NOTHERE.[90] - LouisAragon (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

After a cursory review I think they are editing in good faith, just really badly. Language issues may have a bit to do with it. I've left them a message here but anything further along these lines would easily qualify as disruptive editing and need a mop to clean up. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Section title of FU (as opposed to F-Off) is a clear personal attack no matter how poor one's language—regardless, we likely have issues of sheer incompetence. El_C 06:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Add "idiots like you" to that as well. I don't think we should buy his seemingly feigned "problems" with the English language (regardless of the blunt personal attacks); he is ostensibly "capable" enough to copy-paste information word for word verbatim from this article, and drop it on this article in a newly created section, on no less than two ocassions. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

EDIT; there's clear IP socking by the person in question going on as well. Look how IP 94.102.184.35 beautifully added the very same edit summary and content on the very same article,[91] as user "Roman Sakhan" later would.[92] Then, IP 94.102.184.26 came in, same range/geolocation, supporting Roman Sakhans/94.102.184.35 edit. And to complete the circus act, another IP of the exact same range and exact same geolocation as all mentioned IPs (94.102.184.12), literally just came in as well to support Roman Sakhan/94.102.184.35/94.102.184.26. This is a clear violation of WP:SOCK as well, apart from the washlist of other issues. Now there simply can't be anymore doubt about it. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Everyone indefed. El_C 07:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Admin has brainfart; carnage ensues

The following discussion is closed. 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:Hoary has recently racked up an extraordinary list of non-judicial assassinations.

Having various more pressing engagements, I (Hoary) decided to ignore them and instead to look around the immense swamp of sketches in draftspace. Most of what I saw there was horrible, but some was promising (for example, Draft:Graeme Williams). Realizing that drafts that hadn't been tinkered with for half a year could be summarily zapped, I resolved to look at a lot of the older ones, tinker with those I thought I could productively tinker with, zap what I strongly thought that nobody would/could turn into decent articles, and ignore the remainder. Which led to a very unfamiliar and, I must admit, slightly pleasurable feeling: wielding not a janitorial mop but a janitorial machine gun.

User:Unscintillating was not amused, and put me right. (In case you're as ignorant of these matters as I was: only AfC submissions can be summarily executed after sleeping for six months.)

Duh! Well, I've gone through what I deleted, and undeleted almost all. Almost all of those I left deleted were AfC submissions; one was a childish hoax. I think and hope I've resuscitated all that I shouldn't have killed off, regardless of their quality (actual or potential).

Another admin may wish to take a look, in order to see if anything else I screwed up needs unscrewing. Anyway, you'll be happy to hear that I've quite sated my appetite for zapping moribund drafts. (I might continue looking for and improving the better ones, though.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

One question remains - Trout or stocks? Twitbookspacetube 12:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer an excruciatingly drawn-out ArbCom case followed by a desysop and a site-ban. Much more entertaining. Softlavender (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Tar and feather at the next Wikimeet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Give them the bureaucrat bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Make them an Arb, the ensuing mails they'd have to respond to would be punishment enough. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Make them watch The Amazing Bulk. The ultimate punishment. DarkKnight2149 19:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Make him host the Oscars! --64.85.216.18 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (passing by) - I don't have anything to add, but that list... Someone is having a bad day. DarkKnight2149 17:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Block evasion Human like you at 213.74.186.109

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

---

(cc @Oshwah, Juliancolton, Ian.thomson, and Black Kite:) This is another block evasion of indef blocked user 'Human like you' [93] - reinstalling the same material in Salih Muslim Muhammad as 'Human like you' and their sock puppets, also the IP confirmed that they registered the account 'Human like you'. This IP has been used by the same user at least since Sep 2016. User 'Human like you' has used multiple sock puppets before (some are not listed via WP:DNFTT). The last block evasion at the same IP was discussed here. 217.83.248.75 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

A possible rangeblock?

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

---

There's a weird situation at Deepak that's been going on for about a month, with a number of IPs from the same two ranges making and reverting weird additions. The first one was this, and the most recent today was this, with lots more similar ones in between. The IPs so far have been:

• User:182.59.3.151
• User:182.56.64.214
• User:202.58.102.195
• User:202.58.102.194
• User:202.58.102.197
• User:202.58.103.204
• User:202.58.103.205

Sometimes a 182 IP adds it and a 202 IP reverts, and vice versa. They have all had warnings and/or blocks but have ignored them. I've semi-protected the article for now, but I fear that might just send them to another one, so can anyone please work out if any range blocks might be appropriate? The 182 ones geolocate to Mumbai (ISP "Mahanagar Telephone Nigam"), and the 202 ones to other parts of Maharashtra (ISP "IT-Networking Department"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• The rangeblock for the 202s are easy, 202.58.102.0/23 and there's no collateral there, but the 182s are more problematic (big ranges, and busy) and would probably have to be blocked individually. The 202 addresses have also been disruptive at Mohan (actor), although not for over a month now. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked 202.58.102.0/23 for a month and I've unprotected the article again, and I'll block any 182 ones that show up individually (the latest 182 edit is five days old now). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that the IP, User:2405:204:18e:2853:5588:532b:a023:f394, that reverted the latest one also geolocates to Mumbai. V6 ones should be relatively easy to deal with, but I'll only block ones that make the additions and not the ones that revert them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Rahul Dhanwani's behaviour

The following discussion is closed. 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:Rahul Dhanwani wants/wanted to include a free kick stat in the Lionel Messi article here. After he got reverted by several users here, here, here and here he took it to the talk page right there. As you can see it was closed as not a single editor agreed with him. Now he started a new discussion right after the "old" one was closed here. He got reverted and talked to on his own talk page and per edit summary but he keeps on reverting at the talkpage (not the article so far). So, what do we do? He should WP:DROPTHESTICK... Kante4 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Harrassment by user:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS

The following discussion is closed. 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 feeling threatened by this user who has given me a "final warning" of blocking for placing a picture on a page with this edit. Since the picture is very similar to a number of photos published in the scientific articles cited in that section I can only interpret his action as trying to enforce the removal of the photo (which he has done) by bullying. Chris55 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The user in question has been warned a number of times about their editing with respect to WP:ARBPSCI. Since this is a matter relevant to arbitration-imposed discretionary sanctions, the correct place to discuss this would be WP:AE. jps (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I am not sure posting a picture of an Ape wading on the article Aquatic ape hypothesis was a fantastic idea but it was in a section that discusses primate wading. As purely illustrative its not completely out of scope but it should obviously not be included as serious evidence supporting it (AAH). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A gorilla wading on two legs using a stick to gauge water depth

• I'm sorry, but what? Cue article saying: Most primates naturally walk on two feet when wading in deeper water...and cue image of A gorilla wading on two legs using a stick to gauge water depth which is almost verbatim from the image description from the Public Library of Science, This adult female gorilla in Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park, northern Congo, uses a branch as a walking stick to gauge the water's depth So... exactly what part of this was original? Or are we just knee-jerk reverting and templating with a level four warning for an apparently on-topic image that apparently faithfully reproduces the information from the source? TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The original research bit is that the picture has nothing to do with proving/disproving the AAH. Its just a gorilla wading. Likewise the source of the picture is nothing to do with AAH. Its essentially using a picture of an ape in water to lend credence to the AAH. The 'not completely out of scope' bit I referred to earlier was that it is directly in a section about primates wading.. and the picture is indeed, a wading primate. Personally I wouldnt have used it, its the sort of lazy 'look here is a picture of someone/thing doing it! it must be true!' more suited to tabloids than an encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I gotta say that while I'm not expert on the evolutionary history of primates, to give someone a "final warning" for this, which is by no means OR in any sense of the term, is wrong. There may be other valid reasons to not include the image in the article, but this is WP:BRD stuff, not WP:AN/WP:BLOCK stuff. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}

So is there an actual diff where the user claims this picture proves something, or is that just a blatant assumption of bad faith? TimothyJosephWood 14:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

AGF is (justifiably in some cases) in short supply at the AAH article at the moment. There has been a recent influx of the lunatic fringe. (See Fringe noticeboard and elwsewhere). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

So I'm going to take that as a no, that there actually isn't a diff where the user claimed this picture proved something. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I've added no other content wrt that picture. I just happened across it on a Smithsonian site on the same subject giving credit to Wikicommons. Mentioning the stick was purely in the interests of accuracy but it's irrelevant in the context. Chris55 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute that should be discussed and resolved (via consensus) on the article's talk page (with an eye to WP:FRINGE, MOS:IMAGES, etc.). If necessary, also take it up on WP:FTN. The issue should not be resolved by posting ridiculous "final warning" templates on anyone's talk page. 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS, stop that nonsense or you yourself will be blocked from editing. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Softlavender, please do not ping me for your own jollies as you are not an admin. Thanks. jps (talk)
    • 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS Then take it from me, as I am an admin - stop that "final warning" nonsense and deal with what is simply a content issue by discussion on the relevant talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Noted. I will take all further matters to WP:AE. jps (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
        • I am not sure what in this discussion suggests to you that WP:AE would be an appropriate forum for this discussion. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
          • There is a long history on Aquatic ape hypothesis of adding original research and content that violates WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SOAP. Typically the best way to handle this kind of protracted content dispute which crosses many accounts and has a history that exhausts the good faith of many admins has been to ask for administrators to use discretionary sanction remedies at the affected pages since those admins active at WP:AE have more experience with dealing with these kinds of disputes. I note that the complainant has already been notified of this possibility by a different user: [94] which is why I thought a final warning was more appropriate. If I failed in that, I apologize, but clearly the other user and I are on the same page now. jps (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• That you have the audacity to continue to argue that your original research is worthy of inclusion in an article under discretionary sanctions is amazing. If I see you continuing, I will be recommending some sort of remedy from WP:AE.[95] Yes, clearly on the same page of...threatening to take someone to AE over a picture. TimothyJosephWood 16:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah, I don't see any indication that you and Chris55 are "on the same page now" (if that were so he wouldn't have filed this ANI). I do not see any indication whatsoever of any attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article. I do see that you escalated the confrontation on the user's talkpage after you issued the final warning: [96]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I would point out that an ip, possibly jps, has once again removed the picture after it became the subject of this complaint and was restored by an admin. Chris55 (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I just want to put this here as an example of the sort of comments JPS has been responding to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• WP:FUCKIT TimothyJosephWood 23:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well as I have been mentioned.

I mentioned in my ANI that this user has a long history of abusing other users. This is not just about this one incident (and I note this is going the same way as the last ANI against this user "but this is only one incident, we cannot block for one incident". It is not about one incident, it is about a pattern on behavior going back years. So this user is not going to get any real meaningful sanction and will go away with this attitude expressed here "expect me to resist you in Fringe articles quite often. You're not the first editor who has insisted on such a philosophy, but I pride myself on surviving where many of the rest of them have left or been shown the door". He does not think the rules apply to him (that is clear form my interaction with him) and that he treats ANI's (and AE) as another tool in his pseudoscience. Frankly this is a joke now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose block

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

---

I propose a block of no less than six months for 9SG.../jps.

1. The user already has a block log as long as my arm, including I count four indeffs.
2. It's been all of two weeks since they were last brought to ANI over the 14th stupidest edit war in recent memory.
3. They are, as far as I can tell, reliably reported here almost monthly for something, usually some form of incivility.
4. They clearly don't give a damn, and no one with a block log like that needs or deserves yet more final warnings, on top of the ones they've already ignored.

I struggle to find a user who's been given more WP:ROPE by the community, and I'm all ears if someone has a better example, but otherwise support as proposer. TimothyJosephWood 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, I assume this is for 9SG.../jps? Primefac (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Clarified. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Whilst the "final warning" on Chris55's page is clearly excessive (and jps really needs not to do that again), I would have removed the image myself as it does veer towards WP:OR. As the image detail says, the image is there not to illustrate that an ape can happily wade in water, but that they can use a tool - a stick - to help themselves do so. Indeed, the detail points out that the ape was not happy wading in the water until she used the tool to test its depth. Use of the image without context does present itself to the reader as "Look, an ape wading in water, this backs up the hypothesis" - which it of course it doesn't. A warning (which has already been given) is enough here. Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

How you get original research out of the image is beyond me, and as far as I can tell is basically the same thing as saying we should remove the image from Chiropractic#Treatments, because showing a chiropractor and a patient clearly somehow indicates that it is an effective medical treatment. TimothyJosephWood 16:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"Indeed, the detail points out that the ape was not happy wading in the water until she used the tool to test its depth." That's not what the journal article says: the ape waded all the way up to her waist. Only then did she go back out to get a long stick to poke the area in front of her, to either test the firmness of the swamp floor or measure depth beyond that point [97]. Chris55 points out on his usertalk that "Similar drawings/photos are given in all the scientific papers cited (e.g. Niemitz, 2002, Niemtitz, 2010, Kuliukis 2011) but are copyright. That one happened already to be in WikiCommons." [98]. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Without context, the image is still useless. As would any image of a hominid in water. We know that hominids are not totally averse to water, that brings nothing new to this pseudoscientific theory. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That is... actually completely irrelevant, even if there wasn't an entire paragraph of context, which there is. TimothyJosephWood 18:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Except that paragraph, apart from one sentence (the one about bonobos), doesn't actually have any relevance to the image. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do completely agree that if you ignore the parts about apes wading in water, the image of an ape wading in water is completely irrelevant. TimothyJosephWood 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's clever. Well done. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• oppose jps overreacted badly with their final warning, Chris55 overreacted badly bringing it here, and this makes three for three bad overreactions. No blocks needed for anyone; this discussion stands as enough warning now as to the folly of overreacting.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support This has been a long-running issue, across several of their line-noise account names (Just why does an editor have to keep renaming themselves to stop their username being obvious in history logs? Hmmm.). Also see what must be the 13th stupidest edit war, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_216#globalsecurity.org, why globalsecurity.org needs to be banned as a source because globalresearch.ca is a bad site. This editor's attitude to others here is just unworkable. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• oppose six-month block, but ... jps clearly overreacted, and some sort of sanction might be warranted. As to the edit in question, in my view, in a section titled "Wading and bipedalism", it's appropriate to show an image of a wading biped, so I've just readded the image with a slightly different caption. To which edit, jps has responded on my talk page by suggesting that my edit was "pointy". Paul August ☎ 17:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• And he's right. I'd revert you myself, but I seriously can't be bothered with this nonsense. We have enough pseudo-scientific bollocks in Wikipedia already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: User has had 9 different usernames in 5 years. The last four have been 20-character random-character gibberish. I think this is both UAA territory and evasive, and I suggest a ban on usernames moves and a recommendation that he choose User:Jps and stick to it. I have no comment as yet on the block proposal, but the usernames alone are quite a red flag and problematic. Softlavender (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:UNCONF this is not a block-on-sight username, you could try WP:RFC/N if you like. I've never heard of a restriction on renames before, and since they did them all properly all their contribs and their block are intact, so nothing is actually hidden, although their block log is an ungodly mess. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

K6ka said "this is likely the last time we'll be accepting another username change request from you" at the move request (permalink). That sounds reasonable to me. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think anything that jps has done here deserves an immediate long term block as response. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Black Kite, we certainly do have enough pseudo-scientific bullshite in Wikipedia already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a triviality, its a long term patter of disruptive editing, but either way is fine with me. It's not like there won't be another ANI thread on him in a few weeks. TimothyJosephWood 18:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If something is presented that deserves a long block, I'll totally agree with it. There simply isn't anything here, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This user consistently removes content or makes changes to the AAH page without prior discussion on the Talk page. This involves content which has been on the page for years and was not previously contested by other anti-AAH wiki editors. I second the request to have him blocked please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I hardly think you're an impartial judge of article editing on that topic. Your "anti-AAH" editors are more often than not trying to follow WP:FRINGE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well of course you would, being one of the proponents of this pseudoscience. I think we'll stick to the opinions of those who aren't involved in trying to insert this type of content into an encyclopedia. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. A warning template (more so a final warning) is clearly excessive and not very conducive to discussion. But if we issued six month blocks every time someone posted a warning template that someone objected to, we would rapidly find ourselves out of editors. Personally, I think warning templates for the most part are a bad idea. They are often interpreted as a threat, and sometimes they are merely an empty threat, as in this case, since there was nothing particularly sanctionable about the image in question. Warning templates in edge cases like this lead to conflict escalation rather than resolution. This is a content dispute. jps, don't add any more warning templates, unless you really think repeating the behavior could actually result in sanctions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • TBH, the purpose of the warning was supposed to be indicating that my next stop was/is going to be WP:AE. We don't have a template for that, I tried and failed to find the closest one. jps (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Although 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS seems to have taken the wrong tack here (and he's admitted the error right above this comment, and he's given a reasonable explanation for it), his efforts fall well short of anything that could be reasonably called harassment. Deli nk (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - To be clear, my proposal here came in the heels of Softlavender, please do not ping me for your own jollies as you are not an admin, which is about the variety of flippant dismissal I've come to expect. Since they've defaulted on one of their two perennial ways of avoiding sanctions, missing the point while apologizing, as we saw in December's episode, (the other of course being ignoring the thread completely as in January's episode), then nothing will surely happen and we can probably just close this and move on with our lives. TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Why bother, it will only be overturned like every other ban. Frankly this user is never going to be punished, and is going to only get worse as they come to think they are more important then anyone else. This kind of BS will drive users away, as JPs seems to be quite proud of having done in the past.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposed editing restriction

I propose the following:

user:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS, aka jps (noting in passing his habit of changing username), is indefinitely banned from placing any warning above level 2 on a user talk page, and from placing more than one warning in respect of any user for any one content dispute, and from opening more than one noticeboard thread in respect of any single content dispute, with the sole exception of 3RR notifications at WP:ANEW.

I think that balances the obsessive behaviour leading to the issue with the need to protect the project by not placing excessive barriers to managing simple edit warring. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Could I request that I could also open WP:SPIs when I see suspicious behavior, or are those considered something different than a "noticeboard thread"? If I can file SPIs, I am happy to abide by this restriction whether this proposal passes or not. jps (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Excessive use of warning templates isn't the problem. Persistent, long-term incivility and battleground behavior is the problem, and a token sanction isn't the solution. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well he is not going to get a block, so what other solution is there, apart from a slap on the wrist and a solemn promise to behave until the next ANI, when the whole process will be repeated, with the same exoneration's and promises to learn.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose at this point in time. Either jps fixes the battleground behavior or gives us enough ROPE to actually do something. At the moment, though, we barely have enough to tie the knot. I do have a heavy metal ruler that yall can borrow in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Proposed editing restriction

A ban on posting any warnings. A ban on making any pseudoscience edits without first agreement on talk pages. A final final final warning on making PA's. A ban on any further user name changes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just as a procedural note, that's four completely different things that you're asking for agreement on. Woe to the closing admin who has to decipher that all. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, up till this point I have said there will be no agreement on action. This is my first proposal here. Could you please provide the diffs for me asking for agreement on anything else?Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You're asking for four different editing restrictions. Admin A likes options 1 and 3, admin B likes none of them, admin C likes all of them, and admin D thinks that 3 is a crock of shite but likes the rest. Which (if any) are put into place? I'm not saying you can't propose all four measures, I was just questioning the need to have such a different range of proposals in one motion. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood. The problem is this user has been banned, they have been warned (Finally, at least three times) they have been given a gentle slap on the wrist. And seem to think that they will always "win". There needs to be a clear and unequivocal message that no they do not have special privileges that mean they can do what the hell they like. I am trying to craft a proposal that covers all their malafactions. The other proposal will not (and does not) do that. Frankly I have no idea what will really work beyond some kind of edit ban on topics and talk pages. This is an attempt to achieve something close to that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, this kind of gratuitous piling on, combined with some nonsense accusations, is seriously frowned upon by administrators and others. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)7

No. I'm not doing this song and dance where we try to craft out a restriction that requires its own table of contents, and try to haggle for the best sanction we can get. If the community doesn't support actual sanctions, then they don't. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I actually like the ban on further namechanges. The nature of the names, compounded by the changes, is just annoying, and if it's not designed to create awkwardness for people trying to ping you or find your page to post on, etc, jps (I actually can't be arsed to create a ping, arghh), then I wish you'd explain what it is designed for. I've read the explanation on your userpage and am unimpressed. ("I prefer to be judged on the quality of my contributions rather than the name of this account." Bah.) I'd actually welcome one more change, to a name that is possible to remember and spell, and then no more.

That said, I strongly oppose any kind of editing restriction. I completely agree with User:Black Kite's sentiment above: We have enough pseudo-scientific bollocks in Wikipedia already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality.. Or banned, or otherwise impeded. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC).

• I just want to point out that, unless I'm misremembering, JPS has been doxxed before. That being said, I agree completely with Bishonen's comments above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate revision deletion at Beating of Ken Tsang

On 24 February User:Diannaa, an administrator, amended some content at Beating of Ken Tsang that they alleged had been "copied" from the cited source. The content allegedly copied amounted to the phrases "Chinese state mouthpiece People's Daily" and "sentencing of the seven officers". The administrator then warned my on me talk page for copyright violations.

I explained on my talk page that I had accidentally reused the two phrases, but did not "copy" them – and considering that I have wrote most of the 24,000 byte article and the rest of it wasn't "copied", I do not consider this a blatant instance of copyright violation. Many other news sources refer to the People's Daily or its subsidiary Global Times as a "state mouthpiece" (i.e. BBC, Quartz). In Chinese the case is known as the "seven police officers case" (七警案) and the phrase "seven officers" is widely used in English media also.

Anyway, while I reject the accusation of "copying", I accepted the admin's edits. Then this morning I find that the admin has hidden 17 revisions of the page under the Wikipedia:RD1 criterion.

RD1 cannot apply in this instance. For one, it is not a "blatant" copyright violation. Secondly, the revision deletions remove "attribution to non-infringing contributors", meaning RD1 cannot be used in this case. Citobun (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can see the names of the editors just fine. Only the revision text was hidden, not the usernames, which if memory serves is the key point here. The text is definitively identical, so copyright concerns definitively exist. Whether a revision deletion for one small paragraph is called for I am not certain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Scope of WP:NOTHERE?

Would the editing history of User:66.213.29.17 be considered WP:NOTHERE behavior? I am not making any accusations; I really don't know whether this is or is not within the scope of that often-treated-as-policy information page. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of the questions posed by 66.213.29.17 (talk · contribs) are a bit odd, but I don't think they cross the line, at least not yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how NOTHERE could ever apply to the Reference Desks. Exceedingly few of the questions are related to article editing, ergo few of the questioners are here to build an encyclopedia. Whether the behavior is borderline trollish is another question. Three completely unrelated new questions on three desks within 25 minutes? Are the questions sincere or does the person simply enjoy triggering interminable RD debates for some reason? I'll keep my psych theories to myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's the opposite. WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTFORUM applies to most of the reference desk most of the time. It's a bit like not being a nice guy while in prison. TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• The refdesk isn't really part of the encyclopedia, so, no, NOTHERE clearly does not apply, or we would have to block half the particpants there who don't do anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

May God save the project. I don't know how we'd make it without them. TimothyJosephWood 20:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• The usual reason for blocking someone on the ref desk is "disruption" or "long term abuse". "Not here" is sometimes used, but it's a little slippery, as Beeblebrox suggests. The ref desk itself started as a spinoff from the help desk, and both of them (like this page too) are not articles, but not quite talk pages either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I contribute to the Reference desk using an internet cafe in west London. However, when I composed an edit this morning and pressed "save" I discovered the machine had been blocked - for a month. The block notice said the blocker was "Favonian" and the reason given was ban evasion, User:Vote (X) for Change. The last edit from the address had been at 09:17 and it was a correction of a punctuation error in a talkpage heading. "Favonian" had reverted the correction with this edit summary:

Don't refactor other editors' comment -- especially not when you're community banned.

This is nonsense - formatting corrections are made frequently and they are permitted by policy. On checking the block log I saw that this was the second block - the IP had previously been blocked by "Future Perfect at Sunrise" at 05:58 on Wednesday. The reason given here was long-term abuse: User:Vote (X) for Change. "Future Perfect at Sunrise" then deleted a clutch of reference desk answers claiming they were provided by "banned users".

I referred the matter to the management and they will happily confirm that the edits deleted by "Future Perfect at Sunrise" and the one deleted by "Favonian" were made by different people.

In addition, at the time this supposed ban evader "Vote (X) for Change" made the edit this morning I hadn't even left my house. I arrived at Finsbury Park station at 09:45 where the indicator board informed me that the 09:56 service to King's Cross was delayed and would leave at 10:05. Before leaving the train at Kings Cross the driver informed us that the delay was "caused by severe loss of power" (possibly connected to the fact that there is engineering work on the Cambridge line and trains are running no further than Welwyn Garden City). In any event, Finsbury Park is a very long way from west London. 81.147.142.155 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If you really want to contribute, you could request having your ban lifted. It seems you prefer to disrupt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the refdesks

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#Purposes of the desk the purpose of the refdesks is defined thusly:

"The reference desk process helps the growth and refinement of Wikipedia by identifying areas that may need improvement. If an article that could answer a question is lacking the relevant information, look for a way to work the information into the article. This provides a lasting value to the project."

Does asking question after question, mostly not questions about about any article and without very little indication that he/she actually reads the answers "helps the growth and refinement of Wikipedia by identifying areas that may need improvement"? Are the refdesks there to benefit the encyclopedia, or are they there to be an embedded social networking site? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is more appropriate for an RFC, not ANI, but I would say the short answer is that although it is possible and desirable that article improvements could come from refdesk questions, article improvement is obviously not the primary purpose of the refdesk in practice, regardless of what that page says. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could compel a questioner to acknowledge his previous question before asking another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could require questioners to ask questions that are in any way relevant to the encyclopedia, and I would completely support an RfC proposal reining them in, and explicitly stating that NOTFORUM applies to Wikipedia, period. This is the second time this issue has come up here in the last month and frankly I think it's mostly just silly. I personally don't care how many people might get alienated by the reform, because if those people are not in any way contributing to the project, then their alienation isn't the project's concern. If they do contribute, and their questions are relevant, then it shouldn't terribly affect them anyway. TimothyJosephWood 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No wonder this sounds so familiar. Has anything about the particular user come up on the ref desk talk page? Because that's where it belongs, at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking again through the list of questions from that user, some are a tad provocative, but nearly all of them, if not all (1) can be answered by appropriate references; and/or (2) explicitly or implicitly suggest where improvements might be possible in articles. Conceptually, that's not at odds with the stated goal of the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, "This is the second time this issue has come up here in the last month" -- did it need to come up here, or did the reporter just overreact? As Bugs says, this one can be handled on the refdesk talkpage. The refdesk regulars usually deal such issues pretty well. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Need? If this editor had been doing this literally anywhere else on the project then decidedly yes, and they probably would have already been sanctioned for it. But for some reason we've decided that the ref desk is somewhere where it's appropriate to ask questions about how to contact an IMDB admin, or talk about how you love gems, and frankly, as long as we have vocal editors, and even administrators who engage in and encourage discussion entirely off the topic of building an encyclopedia, then we can't really expect anything to be done about it, and whether a user there gets blocked boils down to, as far as I can tell, personal opinion on whether they are trolling. For my own part, I think a standard of appropriateness that seems to boil down to "any question whatsoever that can in any way be responded to in a way that includes a wikilink", is a bar that is somewhat beneath the project. But hey, maybe one day I too will have a gratuitous question about my genitals, and there'd be no reason to cough up that co-pay when I know the ref desk is just a click away and happy to help. TimothyJosephWood 11:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. Merely a wiki-peon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected. I suppose I see you around here enough that I assumed. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiThugs on Ahmad Mohamad Clock Incident

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

---

WikiThugs are trying to obstruct editing on that article, while concealing the fact of that obstruction. They are also repeatedly using their power to 'comment out' discussions that expose material they don't want to see discussed. They are also using threats of blocking to intimidate people who object to their malicious actions. If you want them informed, the staff will do that. I don't know how to. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The user in question is asking for a boomerang; they have repeatedly leveled unsupported speculative insinuations and outright accusations of criminality against a minor child, in the face of repeated warnings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have learned that "boomerang" has come to mean, effectively, on WP as "Retaliating against a person FOR THE SPECIFIC OFFENSE of complaining about other editors' behavior, regardless and without considering the actions of those other editors". That seems to be coming true here, too. And if "blocking" keeps an editor from continuing writing on the WP:ANI, that amounts to further malicious obstruction: What kind of insane system would not only block a person from editing an article, AND block him from editing a Talk page, and STILL AGAIN block him from engaging in a complaint process HE HAS NEVER MISUSED? 200.33.20.218 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

One of many possible examples: here the user describes the article subject (a child) and his family as "terrorist wannabes" - violating BLP, NOTFORUM, RS, SOAPBOX and half a dozen other policies and guidelines. Simply hatting and redacting has not worked, so it's time for this user to be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess you are pretending that there is some sharp and distinct line between discussing a subject, and discussing the article. I have repeatedly complained about misconduct BY YOU on that article. You ignore it, except you try to conceal it. And you are writing into your own words a misrepresentation of what I actually wrote. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We tried to educate the user about our living persons policy (especially when involving a minor); about observing civility and avoiding personal attacks; about how Wikipedia is not a forum; on how neutrality relies on citing reliable sources and giving them their due weight. All for naught thus far. El_C 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No, you didn't do that. Another editor merely referred to WP:BLP, but did not apply that policy SPECIFICALLY to the article in question, and not to my comments at all. As if you thought it was somehow self-evident, or that your buddies would back you up without further discussion. Well, maybe you were right in thinking that? Congrats for helping ruin WP. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I did do that. And didn't even mention original research... El_C 21:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The OP is clearly WP:NOTHERE and needs a block. IMO the talk page posts need looking at and possible R/D's - though it would take some sifting through. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruption. It's clear they are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and almost anytime anyone starts with "Wiki bullying" almost out the gate, nothing good is going to come from it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing/harassment by User:MatthewTardiff

The following discussion is closed. 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 constantly reverts correctly sourced edits out of spite because he doesn't like them, as well as grammar/spelling edits made by myself and others simply because he doesn't like the person who made the edit. Not only that, but just yesterday I saw him threaten somebody and claim that his family has "connections to the FBI and the CIA" and that his family "could have somebody's computer seized immediately", simply because someone posted on his talk page asking about why he continually reverted somebody's edits. He quickly deleted it afterwards, but it's still visible on the edit history of his talk page. Myself and others have constantly asked him to stop his disruptive edits but all he does is say "he's still learning Wikipedia" or threaten the user in question. Thanks. --TDOldSpice (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2017 (GMT)

Doxxing threat right here: [99]. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WOW. Ok, Matt can have his editing privileges back when he can adequately explain that edit. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Kinnonmaniac

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

---

Obviously NOTHERE - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

How much harassment is OK?

The following discussion is closed. 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:Nfitz just will not stop. Of 11 additions (so far) to [an AFD page], five (arguably six) have been personal attacks. I'm not even gonna bother with diffs. It's all on the page.

Is this de rigueur? Do very experienced editors ever actually get taken to task for "wikihounding" a newer IP editor? Or should I just eat it and pretend it's chocolate cake?184.145.42.19 (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I admit 1 or 2 may have veered into rudeness, after having suffered the same, and that shouldn't happen. However, for the most part, this seems to be retaliation by this frequently blocked user for my participation in the just-closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by user:184.145.42.19 case, just above. As far as I can tell, this user considers any disagreement with his overbearing and overstated positions as a personal attack. A quick review of his talk page edits, show case after case of unnecessary sarcasm and aggression. Examples are: [100], [101], [102], [103] and my personal favourites [104] and [105]. Perhaps I should just ignore it - but the combination of such rudeness and arrogrance I find intolerable in a group project like this. I mean, really, who tells other editors to fuck off and calls them motherfuckers? Indeed, how much harassment is OK? Nfitz (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your off-topic, ad hominem points-scoring is hardly worth a reply. I've done my time, so to speak, and now you're the one calling names. And you admitted it. I'll let the record speak for itself.184.145.42.19 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, putting aside the small matter of my feelings, is it usual to pollute a WP project page with such...let's call it frivolity? Kinda screws up the whole thing in terms of readability.184.145.42.19 (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Is it usual to reply endlessly on an AFD to everyone you disagree with? Which so far would be everyone else who has offered an opinion on whether the article should stay or go. The only opinion that hasn't been commented on is your own. Just state your opinion, and wait for a week. If you've got a valid point, such as an inappropriate reference - sure. But to criticize someone reappearing to the debate after an absence of 5 years - really? Nfitz (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If you're the snark police, you should do a better job policing yourself.184.145.42.19 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no such harassment from Nfitz, and even where they admitted they may have veered a little on the rude side, that still doesn't constitute as harassment. On the other hand, I see plenty of uncivil behavior from the IP here, and I would propose quite a lengthy block for them based on their block history—three blocks within the space of two days back in January, even managing to have both email and talk page access revoked—and that they clearly haven't learned their lesson. This report is purely out of retaliation because of a personal beef they have with Nfitz. Amaury (talk | contribs) 09:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any unacceptable rudeness from either party, let alone harassment.
  However, I do see two editors winding each up as they WP:BLUDGEON the AFD. Each of them has already made their case, so they should both now step back and let other editors have their say.
  And WP:TROUT the IP for an unfounded complaint. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. Nfitz (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• @184.145.42.19: Please read WP:BLUDGEON, stop replying to every comment you disagree with, and stop accusing other users of "personal attacks" and "harassment" just for pointing out that you are doing so and that it is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait ... this is the same IP that, two sections above and four hours before opening this thread stopped edit warring and [...] thus staved off a block? @Drmies: Can you tell them to stop bludgeoning, making bogus accusations of personal attacks and opening frivolous ANI threads like you and a few others already told him earlier today to stop edit-warting? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I was uninvolved in the previous edit-warring at Bar Keepers Friend, and only came into the ANI discussion above to point out the previous AFD, that the close was good, and the obvious futility of resubmitting it. Nfitz (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Is Barkeeper's Friend a good cleaner for WP:BOOMERANGs? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Debresser and Sir Joseph

Both users are aware of what the RFC and survey outcome were on this category, along with what it entails for the existing structure of related categories. However, both have persisted in edit warring (see 1 and 2), reverting and antagonizing users who restored the appropriate categories in accordance with the survey outcome (see 3 and 4), made blatantly dishonest claims in justifying their reverts (see 5, the opening survey statement, and its closure), and attempted to game the system to implement their preferred changes (see 5). Sir Joseph is, as of today, attempting to the restart the same discussion by phrasing it in a slightly different manner. This is disruptive editing and, at least to me, suggests that neither of these users should be editing on topics relating to Jewish descent or ethnic identity, as they are both clearly incapable of leaving their personal feelings out of it. I think a topic ban for both editors is an appropriate solution, but I'll leave that up to you.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Debresser&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sir+Joseph&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Musashiaharon#February_2017

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeffgr9#Please_stop

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=766856773#Category:People_of_Jewish_descent

Firstly, even if the RFC was closed correctly, consensus can change. In addition, the RFC was extremely poorly written and discussed, even among the people commenting there was confusion. There is absolutely no prohibition on me creating a new RFC with a clearer, concise and simpler question. This is a content dispute and you are trying to create a chilling atmosphere where if someone disagrees with you, you will take them to ANI. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

See above for the underlying WP:MEAT issue behind this post. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

First off, my post makes it pretty clear that this is a behavioral dispute, not a content one. Second, it was Debresser who worded the original RFC. That is something you need to take up with him. Although after reading over everything again, no one expressed confusion as to what we were discussing. This is a clear example of dishonesty on your part, and alongside your characterization of my post here as an insidious plot to silence dissent, only supports my view that you are unfit to edit in this area.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

[106] "One of the worst RFC's I've ever seen."

[107] "I do agree with you...." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll give you 105, although it is unclear if it was a reaction to Debresser's OP (again, take that up with him), or the overall long-windedness of the thread. Beyond that, the survey was very clear on what was being discussed, and everybody involved understood that. The issue is moot.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You are edit warring. The RFC was ONLY on the Category of Jewish Descent, not on anything else, since the Jewish Descent cat had Middle Eastern descent, asian descent. The RFC was not for any other categories. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose. Do not engage in threaded discussion, which can go above. The purpose of this section is to make it easier for the closer to assess what the !votes are without having to wade through a lot of back-and-forth." Did you even read the survey?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet the RFC itself was worded as "I propose to reach a conclusion that there is no place for "Middle East" categories, and per the same token "West Asian" or "Asian" categories, on any of the "Jewish descent" categories. There is at present no conformity on this issue in all of the "Jewish descent" categories, and of the many "Jewish descent" categories, some have one or more of the above. This Rfc strives to reach a conclusion that would be binding for all of them, and in my opinion that conclusion should be that those categories are out of place on all "Jewish descent" categories. " Notice all the "DESCENT" categories? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The wording was "Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose." Nothing about descent. However an RFC with that sort of wording needs to be in a centralized location and advertised properly. I don't know how it was advertised but I don't think one category talk page is a centralized location. The outcome should not be used as consensus for other pages, especially with the close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN see right above where the RFC was specifically for descent, which is why the whole RFC was confusing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It was advertised pretty well. Even the editors who were active in previous discussions were notified.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant, it was not in a central location so it can't be applied to any other categories. And besides, I stand by my assertion that the RFC is a bad RFC. It should be overturned just for being malformed. The question of the RFC doesn't match the survey and discussions. It is very confusing indeed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The survey was standalone (in fact, it was a reaction to the sheer long-windedness of the RFC) and the locus of discussion in the survey was abundantly clear. You can't overturn a survey decision because you believe there was widespread confusion (there wasn't) on the RFC, which as you admit, was separate.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

ANYWAY, this is getting off topic. This section is about Debresser and Sir Joseph's behavior, particularly whether they are capable of editing objectively on Jewish descent categories. Everything I've seen from them since the closure of the survey points towards the negative.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A request for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard was closed about a day ago as incompletely filed. It could also have been closed because the dispute is pending in another forum, this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, this should be discussed above. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Now moved to below. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• To be quite honest, The Human Trumpet Solo, you're a highly inexperienced editor, you have only left about five edit summaries in your entire life, and you don't even know how to correctly post a WP:DIFF. This doesn't not inspire my confidence. It seems to me that this is entirely a content dispute, and no amount of wrangling on this noticeboard is going to change that. If people are edit-warring, warn them and report them at WP:ANEW, assuming that you have attempted discussion on article-talk first. If there are any further disagreements, let NeilN and/or Robert McClenon assist in forming a proper dispute resolution protocol in the proper venue(s) (which is not here). Please do not take up more time and space on this board. Softlavender (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I am still concerned that potential issues of MEAT, SPA, and possible socking remain unaddressed in this dispute. This is the second (perhaps third) time I wrote this now. El_C 10:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Cliffmore might need a review

I'm loathe to "report" someone, but I've got a strange feeling by looking at their contribution history and think some eyes would help. What drew my attention was this edit. Please look at the images in question. This change is bordering troll territory.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur that there seems to be a pattern here. I'll leave the user (who recently blanked his or her talk page) a note. El_C 08:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It was a rather rubbish choice of infobox image, but I've seen worse. How about Kay Burley? Cliffmore may have thought "This image of Madeleine Albright is better because it's more up to date", which is a common line of reasoning with infobox images. Overall, I don't think that the edits by Cliffmore were vandalism, although they may have been unhelpful.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

S/he is replacing official images with ones that are either unflattering or where the image is positioned to appear as if it's viewing the article. Subtle, I know. El_C 08:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox images are a notorious trouble spot. I'm not a great fan of the official portrait of Hillary Clinton because of the wide eyes and forced grin, but this is how politicians often appear in their official photos. With a famous person, there will usually be many images to choose from on Commons, but the best policy is to ask on the talk page before changing the infobox image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what I told the user. He is to use talk pages from now on. El_C 09:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I can remember when we were having near daily revert wars over the infobox image in Michael Jackson. The more high profile the article, the more important it is to discuss a proposed change on the talk page and get a consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a different type of situation, where the image selection is used as a provocation. El_C 09:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to help out and update more recent photos of people since all of the people in question have aged very much since their current photo was taken. Pretty obvious - not a troll. - Cliffmore

Please use article talk pages to propose changes to images from now on. El_C 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ben Swann

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

---

I just protected Ben Swann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because of an edit war prompted by one user who keeps reinstating material suggesting that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory might be true, and that Podesta may indeed therefore be implicit in child abuse. This is a pretty straightforward WP:BLP issue, IMO, but since I have been working to point this out to the user I'm bringing it here for review. I rathe rhoped that this bullshit story would no longer be a problem for us, but apparently it is. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I appreciate Guy requesting this review. I agree that the page protection was appropriate but I don't think Guy should have been the one imposing it (or threatening a block) since he was plainly involved in the dispute. I could be mistaken but I'm not aware of any sort of BLP exemption to WP:INVOLVED. Admin tools shouldn't be used as a trump card to win a content dispute, regardless of the righteousness of one's position. Ok, I'll leave it at that. (I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Consider:

In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.

A straightforward BLP violation such as this one would, I think, fall under this provision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with BMK. The difference between protecting to avoid BLP violations and watching like a hawk to justifiably revert them is the difference between the dry and swampy road leading to the same destination. TimothyJosephWood 00:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, looks a good call. Alexbrn (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Good call by Guy, and the warning was appropriate. Clicking WP:INVOLVED and searching for "BLP" shows that removing BLP problems is desirable even in a situation that would otherwise be wheel warring. Johnuniq (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• good call on the protection. The disruption is from an inexperienced editor and I have given them notice of the two sets of DS on the topic, in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Its all good by me. Good call Guy on the protection. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• WP:IAR applies. Neutrality^talk 04:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Straightforward enforcement of BLP, which sometimes requires discussion and action at the same time. That doesn't make an administrator involved. Acroterion (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I have some clarifications please?

If I understand correctly, this has started from this edit. I provided on the talkpage a fairly detailed reasoning which to me seems to have been ignored by all parties, including the threatening admin. It appears to me that there are other editor(s) that try to make other edits, and several editors, including this admin seem to think that I am that party or that I am defending that party. I would like to point out that the introduction of the whole subject uses the exact wording I put in the article, not the current wording used (see Pizzagate conspiracy theory). Why am I being threatened again when I am pointing out the impreciseness currently in use? Nergaal (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it appears to me that this admin is in a haste to stop any discussion even in the talkpage. Nergaal (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"a fairly detailed reasoning which to me seems to have been rejected by all parties". I fixed that for you. Pretty much everyone understood your reasoning and rejected your argument. We do not present facts as attributed opinions. We certainly wouldnt even remotely consider doing so regarding child abuse and living people. You have stated your position. It was rejected. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Ongoing IP inserting unsourced claims despite challenges

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

---

180.145.138.96 (talk · contribs) is constantly inserting the same unsourced claims into the same articles (Doraemon (2005 anime) and Doraemon the Movie 2017: Great Adventure in the Antarctic Kachi Kochi despite constant reverts and challenges and having previously been given a 72 hour ban for doing so. The includes in sections tagged for requiring more references for existing content. The IP has changed within a range previously (possibly too large for blocking) but here we have a pattern of edits all under this individual IP Trying to get temporary protection has been problematic because it's been turned down before for not enough incidents despite there being a clear pattern after previous protection expired. It's also quite clear that this hasn't stopped them from just trying again later.SephyTheThird (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month. Apparently they did not take the hint from the last block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Repeated vandalism from new user Scrape2000

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

---

Scrape2000 (talk · contribs) is currently making a nuisance of him/herself. Batternut (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE is getting close. They've a warning and nothing since, so let WP:ROPE take its course. WP:AIV should be adequate. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Mark Linton and copyright violations

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

---

Mark Linton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an experienced user specializing on articles in wrestling. Today, I discovered Souled Out (1997), created by him, clearly copied verbatim from elsewhere (Google gives enough hits). I speedy deleted the article and posted a notice at the talk page of the user. In the meanwhile I noticed that I was the fourth user warning him about copyright violation, and his reply to the previousl three users was always that he needs time to expand the article. I figured out that he possibly copies the text from elsewhere in Wikipedia, and left another notice explaining him that the attribution is necessary even in this case. In the meanwhile, he recreated the article verbatim, which I speedy deleted. He went to my talk page and left the same notice about necessity to expand the article. I asked him where the text is coming from, to which he did not reply. In the meanwhile, he recreated the article for the third time, still without an attribution. I am hesitant to delete it again or to block the user for copyright violations, since he clearly means well, but does not seem to get the point. May be someone can try explaining the point to him more efficiently. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

We had some more exchange at my talk page which unfortunately did not help me to convince the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've posted some more information on this topic on his talk page. Hope that helps. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Correction: I placed my comments at User talk:Ymblanter#Souled Out (1997), and have now cross-posted my comments to the user's talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Problematic AfD

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

---

Just drawing attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Ozee. All of the "keep" !votes are by single purpose accounts, new editors, and IP editors (one of them voting more than once). Strongly smells of conflict of interest, paid editing, socking, and/or off-wiki canvassing). An admin to referee this one would be helpful. First Light (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the AfD page for 3 days; this should allow the discussion to proceed with less disruption. Lectonar (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! First Light (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)t

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

Serial copyright violations...

Break enforced by Yunshui. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

May some admin look at the case of @Nihil kumar:.Creating non-notable clear copy-vio articles--all from the same website.Was blocked for 2 weeks prev for same reason(here).Was advised to take a break from creating articles, a few days back at here but they seem to have continued at the same spate.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Disruption and personal attack by user MarnetteD

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

---

MarnetteD removed a thread from WT:RD apparently on the basis of past edits which MarnetteD (and some others) consider trollish behavior. I had and have no opinion about the past behavior, but I reverted the removal because it's improper to effectively ban an editor from the reference desks based solely on past behavior. In other words, trolls should be given the opportunity to change their trollish behavior, and there is nothing trollish about the removed thread. MarnetteD re-reverted, referring to me as an "enabler". I re-reverted, citing WP:BRD and requesting MarnetteD to seek consensus for the removal. Once again MarnetteD re-reverted, this time escalating to calling me "loser". The removal stands as of this moment. For brief further reading, see User talk:Mandruss/Archive 5#Nothing like it.

This complaint is not about the merits of the removal, which are not really a matter for this page, but about the disruptive refusal to seek consensus for a disputed edit—disputed in good faith by an established editor in good standing (WP:DE)—and the personal attacks (WP:NPA) against said editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, there have been issues with an LTA trolling the reference desk with blatantly racist, degrading, and offensive questions in the past. I would understand that MarnetteD removed this reference desk question believing it to be another such disruptive post. I will also agree that the back-and-fourth reverting of the post should not have happened and a discussion should have taken place. If you reverted the removal believing the question to be legitimate, then it should have stopped there and a discussion should have been started by MarnetteD if there was a disagreement. MarnetteD - calling someone a "loser" and an "enabler", although not nearly as insulting or serious as the numerous edits we've both seen editors refer to another, isn't okay to do. You should always respect one another regardless of the disagreement at-hand. While I'm tempted to refer to these as just "pokes or prods", they are personal attacks no matter how big or small you look at it. I think that you two just need to shake hands, and discuss the matter with one another. I see no reason to take action so long as you both agree to do so :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked I have blocked[108] MarnetteD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for edit-warring, and for the misuse of an edit-summary to make a personal attack on another editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see that BrownHairedGirl placed a 24 hour block on you for the edit warring and the personal attacks you left in your edit summaries, MarnetteD. I feel that you should have an opportunity to respond to this ANI report and discuss your side of the issue here. If you file an unblock request with the promise to not continue the edit warring and with the promise to refrain from any further personal attacks (and, of course, if BrownHairedGirl doesn't object to this) -- I will grant your unblock request. I feel that you should have an opportunity to respond here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have restored the disputed thread, subject to consensus to remove it. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: This is a case of edit-warring by an experienced editor who twice used edit summaries to make personal attacks, and followed that up with more incivility in a discussion on Mandruss's talk[109]. I think that MarnetteD's explanation would be better made as an unlock request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl - I was not aware of the talk page discussion that followed - thank you for bringing this to my attention. I appreciate your response and your input. While I absolutely do not condone personal attacks and edit warring, I do support the principal that blocks should only be made for the duration that puts a stop to the problem; If someone experienced such as MarnetteD makes an unblock request with the promise to stop the disruption, I see no reason to deny the request. However, you are the blocking administrator and I will respect and honor this and leave the decision in your hands. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks. I agree that blocks are preventive rather than punitive, so if MarnetteD makes an appropriate unblock request with appropriate assurances, then of course any admin should feel free to unblock.
I just don't think it would be appropriate to unblock without those assurances. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I am not interested in "punishing" anybody or "teaching them a lesson". Although I strongly object to the PA, my main objective was to get MarnetteD to seek consensus for the edit, and regrettably an ANI complaint was the only recourse left. If there was a better way I'd be interested in learning about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that anyone who elects to be an "admin" – and is upset when called "enabler" and "loser" – should first consider growing a thicker skin. Get over it! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is upset here, Gareth Griffith-Jones. Ignoring the other concerns expressed here... the bottom line is that we have policies regarding how we interact and collaborate with one another; they clearly disallow making personal attacks or engaging in similar behavior with others -- it's one of our core principles. Experienced and long-term editors (especially administrators) are expected to know and understand this policy and follow it. We are to treat one another with respect and we are not to threaten, name-call, intimidate, or make personal attacks towards one another. Period. Editors who do so repeatedly can be blocked for this. I also don't fully understand your response here. The person that the personal attacks were aimed toward is not an administrator, and the editor explained just above that his intentions were not to punish or retaliate to the behavior. Did you take time to read through the entire thread? What exactly are you trying to say here? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless you're [redacted by Floquenbeam to remove user names] or one of the favored few, from whom we routinely see far worse. Then you can be as obnoxious as you wish, all is swept under the rug. --Drmargi (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless you're what??? EEng 16:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

C'mon. You know exactly what, and who, I mean. That special little group with their cadre of followers who cry "CONTENT CREATOR!" as a means to say, and do, anything they damned well please while teflon-ing out the occasional block. --Drmargi (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmargi really needs to explain their attack, preferably with diffs and/or names, but I'll settle for an explanation of what you mean by "you" being edited. People aren't usually edited, even by Floquenbeam — did you mean to say something else? Or, the preferred option, remove your comments. They don't seem to be highly relevant here. You can't expect the average ANI reader to keep track of your grievances, so please don't post them in the form of riddles. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC).

To clear up some confusion here: The grey text in Drmargi's above comment was not written by Drmargi. Floquenbeam edited out some usernames and replaced them with the grey text. Mysticdan (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. User:Floquenbeam, please don't create riddles where there were none before. Grey text? That's not even standard. Sorry, Dmargi, my comment was mistaken. You should just remove your sour irrelevant posts altogether. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC).

Well, it was clear to me what was going on.... sorry for the confusion. I've tried to clarify. The stuff in grey was redacted by me. My point is, don't call out specific people who are completely 100% uninvolved in this mess. Drmargi wasn't attacking me, and it's my fault it sort of looked like they were. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Clear to me too. Drmargi, seriously? You want to bring that old irrelevant nonsense up again? The one hasn't been around since January, the other is actually currently blocked. So you weren't just being insensitive and irrelevant, but also just plain wrong. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not an attack. It's simply a statement of fact as I see it: there is a double-standard here that exempts certain editors from even the minimum standards of civility because they place themselves on the content creators' pedestal while their acolytes fawn over them, and others are held to a very high standard indeed. Floq didn't like my naming names, which altered the prose slightly, but really, we all know who I'm referring to anyway. I have tremendous respect for BrownHairedGirl, but in this instance, and absent any warnings, this was a rushed block that simply highlights the double-standard even more. That's all there is to it. --Drmargi (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi I would have acted in the same way to a similar report about any other editor, except perhaps for a newbie who might not yet know better. Experienced editors know not to edit war, know not to use personal attacks, and above all know not use edit summaries to give those personal attacks more prominence.
You may well be right that other admins would exempt certain editors, but you have no basis for accusing me of maintaining a double standard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. I didn't accuse you of maintaining the double-standard. I said this block highlighted the double standard. BIG difference. --Drmargi (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You certainly insinuated it. Given that one of the two editors you mention is currently blocked for a month for ... let's see ... personal attacks, I hardly think your claim holds water anyway. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

False date changes by 47.137.198.138

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

---

This IP has had a long sequence of changing details, mainly dates, in articles. Not all of these changes are amenable to online checking but whenever you can check, they invariably turn out to be false. See [110], [111], [112], [113], [114]. They sometimes change the date in a reference to line up with the change in the article text as in [115], [116]. They have been warned several times and have not responded to Herostratus's enquiry: Noyster (talk), 13:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked a month. All the IP's changes should be looked at and probably be reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock with talk page access revoked

I just upgraded a checkuser-block on the range, 95.49.0.0/16 (Orange, in Poland) to lock out talk page access due to ongoing abuse on User talk:95.49.125.4. Any admin is welcome to change the rangeblock back such that it allows talk page access if they are willing to monitor and deal with the abuse. Similarly, any admin is welcome to change the rangeblock back and revoke talk page access for just that IP address, though obviously the vandal will then just hop to the next address. And I won't object to admins adjusting the block any other way they see fit, keeping in mind this is a checkuser block by DeltaQuad (who I'm about to notify). --Yamla (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: To be clear, it's a rangeblock had some assistance from CU, not a CU block ({{rangeblock}} vs {{checkuserblock}}, therefore normal admins can modify it. Either way when I saw my IRC notifications this morning, I was going to revoke talk anyway. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Spam on Wikipedia:Featured topics

The following discussion is closed. 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 noticed that someone added spam to the Wikipedia:Featured topics page, including several phone numbers that probably should be rev-deleted. Unfortunately, whoever added the text didn't add it to the page directly but apparently transcluded it from some other template. I am not in a position right now to hunt down and find the source of the spam. Could someone hunt this down and kill it? You'll find it in the Sports and recreation subheading between two bicycle races. –Grondemar 18:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed - The relevant page was Wikipedia:Featured topics/2012 Tour de France, and the relevant user was User:Babaji11220. This was their only edit. TimothyJosephWood 18:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User has been blocked by RiB. A single revision needs revdel. TimothyJosephWood 18:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Poof. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Magic TimothyJosephWood 18:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Hijacking of Telegrafberget

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

---

Back in November, User:Kariua332 hijacked the dab page Telegrafberget and moved it to Tech For Good, retargeting the leftover redirect to one of the dab entries. Kariua332 is already in a "likely" list of recent sockpuppets of Highstakes00, and this behavior matches.

Would someone put the page histories back in order, please? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed and editor blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Satanic threat is satanic

The following discussion is closed. 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: 2A02:C7F:2C02:1700:F09A:AC75:6D72:F151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I have just given this user a final warning for this uncivil piece of vandalism, which administrators may or may not want to delete for intented offensive content. DarkKnight2149 22:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Seriously? You think that deserves an only warning and revdel? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I notified administrators for them to decide if it needs a revdel or not. Given that it was intended to offend, I do think an only warning was justified. Their next edit may not be as subtle, though this one was only moderately such. DarkKnight2149 22:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

While I personally favour a low-tolerance approach to vandalism, you're going way over the top. How can you possibly tell it must have been intended to offend? For a horror film article, it seems pretty standard drive-by silly vandalism. BethNaught (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the inappropriate warning. The edit probably refers to a resurrected movie character. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NeilN: There are no Saw characters called "the devil". It was clearly vandalism.

@BethNaught: That could be the case, though that would be a step into darker humour. Do you want me to replace it with a lesser warning? DarkKnight2149 22:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Metaphor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

2nd opinion: This appears to be a juvenile edit test to me, worthy of a level 1 warning, certainly not approaching block-worthy. Fine to keep an eye on for further disruption. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The IP hasn't edited in over an hour so they're probably long gone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible logged-out editing to evade topic ban

The following is suspicious, but I am not 100% sure that it passes the duck test.

On 18 September 2016 User:Jed Stuart was indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories.[117]

On 19 February 2017 User:2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA started posting to Talk:Electronic harassment, making the same basic point that Jed Stuart was making before the topic ban; that we should treat the opinions of those who believe that they are victims of electronic harassment with the same weight as the opinions of mental health professionals who believe that their experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis. Examples:[118][119][120][121]

So, do I hear a quack, or am I hearing quacking where there isn't any? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You know if you wore a tinfoil hat you wouldnt hear subliminal quacking.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Just took a look at their contributions. SPA-IP which exists only to push an agenda. Largely irrelevant as to the duck test, what they want is unlikely to happen. Continued pushing will probably end up with a block sooner rather than later. From the article talkpage history I suspect they are more likely related to Beautifulpeoplelikeyou who also had a bee in their bonnet about state terrorism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Bananas? 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• I semi-protected the talk page due to obvious evasion of sanctions. A review of past talk page edits indicates that this will not be in any way detrimental, one month for now and we could make it indefinite without any obvious downside. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Owww 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not me. And that is not the point I was attempting to make. Typical mischaracterization of what I was attempting to say. I am reading that Talk page though and one day you may regret treating me with such belligerence. How many times have I been accused of doing that? I can't be bothered to find out.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If you say that 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA is not you I will take your word for it. As for "belligerence", I would not be doing you any favors if I were to mislead you into thinking that there is the slightest hope that your theories will ever be included in any Wikipedia article without you first finding a reliable source as defined by WP:MEDRS to back them up. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I was not attempting to assert a personal theory. I was attempting to integrate information from the Washington Post into the article and also achieve a more NPOV than an article weighted 100% to not well researched psychiatric opinion in an environment in which many people think otherwise. I was banned from the article on the basis of your and others false accusations and am angry now that I was banned without being given the chance to refute all that.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Call it whatever you want. It is not going into any Wikipedia article without a WP:MEDRS-compliant source backing it up, which the Washington Post article[122] is not. You were topic banned indefinitely from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories per this ANI discussion. To your credit, you have obeyed the topic ban, but the fact that you seem to have learned nothing from that ANI discussion tells me that the topic ban needs to stay in place. Of course you can appeal the ban (see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community) but any appeal will be rejected until you show some understanding of why so many people supported your topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not the IP was Jed, Jed's actions in this this thread are almost certainly not covered under BANEX. The most recent comment is a blatant attempt to justify the behaviour that led to the ban. @Jed Stuart: Just to be clear, you are allowed comment here to either deny or admit to having engaged in sockpuppetry to get around your TBAN. You are not allowed loudly proclaim that the ban was not justified to begin with and you never did anything wrong, unless you are specifically appealing the ban itself. This thread is not, at least right now, about appealing your ban; it is about whether you violated it by socking. You have denied this accusation. The community will decide whether your denial is credible. But if you continue to violate your ban by discussing it in a manner like above it will not matter whether you had already violated or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri makes a good point. Jed Stuart, I'm not going to ask for sanctions myself, but you should be aware that your last comment was a violation of your topic ban. Take this as a warning and try to abide by it. And please, please try to realize why you were topic banned. I would like nothing more than to be able to support you if/when you eventually appeal it, but it doesn't look like I can from your last comment.

(I can't believe I forgot to watchlist that page with my alt, so I've been unaware of it as I rarely use my main account these days.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC

@MjolnirPants: I don't know quite how it works, but I notice your alt acocunt has email enabled -- does this mean you use a different email with your alt account? My watchlist mostly functions to send me email notifications, so I tend to (fallaciously) assume that's how everyone else uses theirs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I can get emails sent to either account, but I don't want email notifications of changes on my watchlist. I'm usually watching at least 1-3 wikispace pages in addition to 2 noticeboards, 2 project pages and 1 help desk page. I'd drown in emails if I did that, and I'm too lazy to set up something to handle them for me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I wont let Guy Macon goad me into any more discussion of the EH article. How do we clear up whether I am socking or not? I know that people with a similar perspective to mine on that article do often attempt to win that way, but I dont think of doing that as it would be a difficult victory to hold and might even be bad for ones health.Jed Stuart (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jed Stuart: That's the spirit. And (although I don't necessarily agree that this was happening here), if you see someone apparently trying to goad you into violating your editing restriction, a good idea is to politely ask them to stop, and if they refuse then you can notify the admin who closed the ban discussion and ask them to intervene. (In theory, you should be able to open an ANI thread on them, but I tried this before -- it frequently doesn't work.) Obviously goading someone into violating their own editing restriction despite warnings to stop is a blockable offense. You're actually lucky in that you are only subject to a TBAN. With an IBAN it's much worse because even mentioning the username of the person you are banned from interacting is a clear violation that can get you immediately blocked, even if another user is disruptively bringing up their name in an unrelated dispute. In your case, simply saying I don't want to discuss that with you; it would probably be a violation of my editing restriction would likely do the trick, but if you were subject to an IBAN and you said the same thing ... don't ask. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:I will try that it if it happens again. I prefer polite. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. I just wasn't thinking with my "I wouldn't be doing you any favors if..." comment, which was completely unfair given the topic ban forbidding a reply. I deserve a slap in the face with a wet trout for being such an idiot, and Jed Stuart should be held blameless. It was entirely my fault. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Would that some users clearly guilty of repeated and flagrant goading were as quick to admit being in the wrong. You are to be commended for your willing contrition, Guy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I am thinking about why I was banned, and am still concerned that it was based on untruths. I did however learn a lot about how corrupted Wikipedia is at that level. The comments by EdChem at my attempt to get a right of reply were most enlightening no fairness. I will appeal when fairness is valued again and there is less chance of getting a repeat of that Stalinist show trial. Bow to the God of Wikipedia. I still like it though.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Jed, you're really going to hurt yourself if you insist that Wikipedia is out to get you. In case you hadn't noticed, WP is made of all kinds. We have liberals and conservatives, social justice warriors and white nationalists, conspiracy theorists and sheeple, atheists and Christians and Jews and Muslims, lions and tigers and bears, oh my. Getting any sort of cabal or conspiracy together out of that hot mess is, even you have to admit, all but impossible. Even getting a group of like-minded individuals together on request is extraordinarily difficult here (and strongly discouraged as a rule). You're heading down a path I've seen a dozen or so editors take, and while each one had a different story of their trip down that path, each one has ended up in an indefinite ban. A well-earned indefinite ban, I might add. Please don't follow them. If you need to take a wikibreak, then do that. But don't shoot yourself in the foot by trying to put motivations on a gaggle of a few hundred nerds with strong opinions on everything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is out to get me. I think I was treated unfairly by a small group of people, and wont be appealing until Wikipedia returns to valuing fairness at that level. Simple thing really, many people have put energy into making it a fair and constructive place. It is truly amazing how much has been achieved. And I see many people though deeply saddened and some furious, not because it is out to get them, but because the good effort is being undermined by corruption of process, gaming the system, POV railroads etc, and I notice that many of those who have tried to change that drift towards something less user friendly have left. Not a conspiracy just a slide in the wrong direction. It will probably come good sooner or later. The momentum for that has been established.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User uploading copyrighted videos

Ju English (talk · contribs · uploads) has been repeatedly uploading copyrighted videos and other materials, either not licensing them or leaving out fair use rationales. The lack of use (not even in userspace) leads me to suspect WP:NOTREPOSITORY. In addition to the CSD warnings, I gave a sterner one this morning, and the user has continued to upload. — Train2104 (t • c) 17:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Another user: Arlindo gomes Arlindo (talk · contribs · uploads) — Train2104 (t • c) 06:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Possible block evasion - Junior De Almeida (talk · contribs · uploads) - see File:Seiren_-_primeiras_caricias.pdf — Train2104 (t • c) 15:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked both Ju English and Junior De Almeida for socking per DUCK pending the conclusion of an SPI case. I am not sufficiently confident about Arlindo gomes Arlindo's possible relationship to the other two accounts to block them for socking. However, I have posted a level 4 warning, which I am guessing will be ignored, on their talk page. The next time they upload a non-free image I will block them. If you think this is the same person feel free to add them to the SPI investigation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't suspect the third account of sockpuppetry, it was just another video-uploader to be dealt with. Can you delete the uploads/userpages of the blocked users? — Train2104 (t • c) 17:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Ad Orientem: More uploads by Arlindo gomes Arlindo (talk · contribs · uploads), including an instructional video on how to upload on ca-wiki. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. The files appear to have already been tagged for deletion which works for me. Let the clock run. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: and others: I got a little suspicious when I saw the aforementioned instructional video on how to upload, and went digging around ca-wp. I found this thread on their version of ANI, which links similar issues to cross-wiki WP:ZERO abuse. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user:184.145.42.19

The following discussion is closed. 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 the article Bar Keepers Friend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the IP user 184.145.42.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is engaging in disruptive behavior. Their initial edit added an {{advert}} tag and blanked the external link section (EL section is composed of an official link and two news articles that could be incorporated into the article). When that was reverted, they then did wholesale blanking of content, including well sourced material.[123][124] Their argument on their talk-page that the official link is promotional - as well as stating "Feel free to report me or whatever"[125].

I suspect this will eventually reach 3RR teritory; but given the user's responses to comments on their talk page as well as prior behavior by this same IP- I chose to report it here now to see if someone else can get through to the user before blocks are necessary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

IP has been notified ... and while typing the above, the IP blanked the same content again.[126] --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Blanking"...is that what it's called when you remove unreliable sources from an article, and then have to remove the content that relies upon said sources? I implore anyone to see the diff and decide for themselves. Also, please note that I informed Barek of my intention to nominate the article for deletion, and asked them to be more careful in reverting numerous edits in one fell swoop because they disagreed with one or two.184.145.42.19 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the article is never going to be deleted at AfD, and you're removing material that ... well, some of it is clearly sourced and some of it is not so great, but you're removing it without a rationale, so I've reverted you, and you're at 3RR now, so leave it for discussion please. Black Kite (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there's certainly some poor-quality content that should be cleaned-up. But that didn't justify blanking large sections. On the IPs talk page, they didn't seem interested in discussion - although in hindsight I should have pointed them towards WP:BRD. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for taking the time to respond to this report. The underlying issue at-hand here is the fact that you're making repeated reversions to the article and in a back-and-fourth fashion with others. This is called edit warring, which is not allowed. Instead, editors are expected to engage in proper dispute resolution and discuss the issue on the article's talk page and come to a consensus. This is what you need to do... you need to discuss this dispute here and come to an agreement. In the meantime, please do not make further reversions to the article. Doing so is disruptive, and you can be blocked for this... which is something I'd really rather not do to you... okay? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can just have a look at the article itself? Specifically, with regard to notability and verifiability of sources. I read the previous RfD summary, which was closed by an account found to be (if I've followed the thread correctly) a prolific sock puppet. I'm trying to make Wikipedia better, while others seem more interested in preserving the status quo. Further, Barek was only too happy to revert numerous edits in a go, while specifying they only had a problem with one or two. It's also interesting to me that Barek preferred to assume I would 3RR rather than assume good faith. Might that be because of the nature of their reverts???184.145.42.19 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you're trying to improve Wikipedia and make good choices and decisions (this is why nobody is blocking you), and that you're frustrated over this situation. If you start a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the concerns you have with the sources cited in the disputed content and why you believe they're unreliable, and ask everyone involved to weigh in - the best decision regarding what to do (if applicable) will be reached and as a group of people working together. Remember: We're all here to improve Wikipedia just like you are. We need to collaborate, interact, discuss, and behave towards others knowing that we're all on the same team and wearing the same jerseys. If we fail to do this, coming to a decision that best reflects the content of the article to readers will be much harder, which is one of the main principles in which Wikipedia operates and grows :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

How is the sock-puppetry of the closer relevant? Would any editor have closed that AFD differently, based on the discussion? Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In this context, the closer of the previous AFD doesn't change the fact that consensus was a clear keep. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Below is a facsimile of my reply to Nfitz from my talk page, for context.

"For one, the user that closed the case last time was found to be a prolific sock puppet (20+ accounts, by their own admission). For another, the sources were a mishmash of the company's own website and "business-friendly" local media. Finally, if anecdotal evidence matters (it shouldn't, but did seem to in the previous AFD, so...), I've heard of every single other cleaner mentioned in the article...but not the one in the namespace. Please don't assume status quo is status correct. Like, did you look at the article? The AFD? Any references? The relevant WP policies??? I've spent the last hour and change doing exactly that, and I implore anyone who cares about keeping WP free of promotional material to do likewise. I, an inexperienced manual editor who has to flail around to get even basic things done, should not have to lead experienced editors (and admins!) around by the nose to prove my case. It's all there in black and white. Does anyone care to look?"

After that, Nfitz more or less accuses me of being a sock puppet and said I "just want to argue" [127]. Thankfully, Jbh did care to look at the article, and came to the same (painfully obvious, IMO) conclusion. I hope this puts to rest the spurious allegations levelled against me.184.145.42.19 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've warned the user for edit warring on Bar Keepers Friend. If the reverting continues, I'm comfortable with blocking the IP for edit warring and knowing that the user was warned first and allowed an opportunity to correct the behavior. I'm going to hold off in the meantime and keep an eye on the user's contributions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that the article has been at AFD before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend. This was a unanimous well-attended keep. There's no reason to think the outcome would be any different now, AFAIK. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sent to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend (2nd nomination). The previous AFD had one good source and the rest was based on the age of the product/patent. I did a quick search and did not find anything other than how to articles and articles that looked like PR/product placement. As it stands the article is nothing but an advertisement for this product. Jbh ^Talk 02:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It means a lot to me, given how other editors have deigned to treat the matter without actually considering edits and intent. I cannot believe Bar Keepers Friend wasn't deleted the first time around, and though I certainly don't speak for User:Eric Corbett (the former "Malleus Fatuorum" from the edit history, who proposed deletion within a month of the article's creation in 2009), I suspect that ed. might have been similarly incredulous at their deletion tag being unceremoniously removed without discussion. Cheers.184.145.42.19 (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

user:184.145.42.19 Discussion after closure

• Except, my dear Drmies, 184.145 has continued his WP:BLUDGEONing tactics at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend (2nd nomination), so has clearly not taken in the information presented here. I believe a short block might be in order, or at least a topic ban from AFD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, forgot to ping @Drmies:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• The messages left for Admins involved in this debate at about the same time also seem to constitute personal attacks. See [128], [129], [130] and particularly [131]. On the other hand, his last two edits, may have been a retirement from Wikipedia [132] and [133] - so perhaps not worth doing anything. Nfitz (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• I saw that, BMK, and I closed another thread for it. I don't believe in short "attention-getting" blocks, but if this whining continues (after what appears to be a farewell shot below the belt), yes, there will be a block. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• The original ANI was closed. Now, you're having a further discussion which nobody bothered to mention on my talk page. What the hell is wrong with you people???184.145.42.19 (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, what the hell is wrong with you? You missed being blocked by the skin of your teeth, but were warned about WP:BLUDGEON, and then blithely went ahead and continued your BLUDGEONing behavior on the AfD nevertheless. You are inherently a disruptive editor, and a block is heading your way sooner rather than later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• This, from an otherwise-uninvolved person who came to my talk page for no other reason than to call me a liar after the initial ANI was closed?[134] But like every other WP rule, policy or guideline, WP:BLUDGEON only applies to IP editors. Or something. You owe me an apology, and more importantly, you owe one to User:Nfitz for your disgusting "Don't ever..." outburst[135]. Coming from someone who grew up in the projects, and who's had to stand before a judge several times, I can say your lack of contrition is positively stunning. You clearly live in a world with no consequences for your actions. Lucky you.184.145.42.19 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Hang on. You are the one who re-opened the discussion, and failed to notify them. I can see that one might be a bit annoyed about that. The instructions clearly say you must notify them on their user talk page. Not you should. Not it would be nice if you did. But you must. And you didn't. And now, instead of apologize for your error, you swear at people? Nfitz (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• You are correct. You should have been notified by User:Beyond My Ken or myself. I'm sorry. It was all then reclosed, but User:BrownHairedGirl reopened it again when she was tidying up. But I don't know if that was intentional, or just an oversight. I don't see that any further action need be taken now, and this should all just be reclosed again I think. Nfitz (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Don't ever apologize for me again. If I think an apology is in order, I'm more than capable of doing it myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Where did I apologize for you? I apologized for me. If I had apologize for you, I would have said We are sorry not I am sorry. Personally, I think you owe both the IP user and myself an apology at this stage ... though I admit they owe us several. Nfitz (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• What actually happened was that I spotted that discussion had continued after closure, so I went to add a sub-head ... but I hadn't spotted that it was the closer @Drmies who moved the new comments inside the closed section[136] in between me reading the page and going to edit. So when I edited a few minute later[137] I moved the new comments outside the closed section I was undoing part of Drmies's edit. My bad; sorry to all.
  However these were minor procedural glitches as editors noted the continued WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct of the IP, and that misconduct is the substantive problem here. The hostility of the IP's later comment at 04:05[138] suggests to me now that in hindsight the original close does indeed turn out to have been overgenerous, and that a block is indeed in order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe you should read WP:BATTLEGROUND instead of just citing it for effect. When you're done there, have a gander at WP:DSAN, WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT. You may well learn something. Then again, you may not.184.145.42.19 (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't if it's so much a serious WP:BATTLEGROUND rather than just some post-discussion grumbling. I don't know if a block would actually accomplish anything at this point except to antagonize further. As WP:BLOCK notes that blocks are not punitive, and only preventative, I think the best preventative thing to do, is just to close this discussion, and let everyone cool off. Nfitz (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I think the warning is clear enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• User:BrownHairedGirl, I'm sorry if I "template:archive"d incorrectly; wouldn't be the first time I got confused. As for cooling off, dear Nfitz, I got a guy replacing my front door, and as long as that door is not in place it's pretty damn cold here. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how you'd install a guy like that, but I should imagine that he would not provide sufficient draft protection. He may be handsome or at least unique, but you'll do better to replace him with a proper door. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• (ec) No worries, Drmies. You probably did the right thing putting a lid on it again. My edit ended up reopening it to achieve nothing except us all apologising to each other, so I wish I had left it alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Nat Gertler, good call. I told him it would be OK if he put that spare door in his place. But now he's waiting for his colleague to come back and unscrew him from the frame. BrownHairedGirl, I'm sorry for all the apologies. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Many IPs with KCBS-TV and Paul Magers

Recently, there was a brief edit warring with me and the adding of Paul Magers which is a KCBS anchor. Although he is an anchor for KCBS-TV, he does not have an article. Only names that do have articles can be put into the article! See the talk page on KCBS-TV for more information. This is a list of IPs that keep adding Paul Magers.

107.77.209.202, 73.94.201.224, 2605:e000:3d4b:b900:fdd0:844e:8f55:6117, 2601:601:8701:f3ae:d02f:118:ef5e:2e03

Not every TV station mentions main anchors. I may need to get a page-protection request. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You can add names that don't have articles, why not? This isn't RFPP, but if it was, your request would probably be declined. El_C 13:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It cannot run afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and WP:NOTNOTABLE ACMEWikiNet (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTNOTABLE is an essay about AfD voting. Per LISTBIO and SOURCELIST, individual people in a list must only require sourcing that they belong on the list, not that they are independently notable. In particular, the standards for the anchor being included in the list is no greater than the standards for him being included elsewhere in the article in prose (which he is, twice), and the standards for him being included is simply WP:V (a reliable source must say he is an anchor for him to be included). Especially note the sentence in LISTBIO that says On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable. which would seem to apply here. I found a couple good sources that state Magers belongs on the list, so I will add him along with those sources and post this message on the talk page as well. Pinguinn 🐧 06:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

OVERLINKING and redirect problems

Fmadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fmadd is a (relatively) new user on Wikipedia, but has already created quite a big stir. In the past two weeks alone they have created over 250 redirects and DAB pages (and a total of 942 redirs since joining). While clearly they are not all bad, the majority are somewhat nonsensical (such as thermomagnetic, Scattering_event, and a couple of not-actually-DAB pages that have already been deleted). From looking down their creation list, it almost appears as if they say "I don't know what this means", put a wikilink, and then attempts to shoehorn in a redirect to something that is vaguely related.

I was going to drop this and walk away, but after seeing three subsequent similar posts at the user's page I feel obligated to bring it up here. In the last two months there have been 5 threads on their talk page regarding overlinking and a half-dozen notices left for pages listed for deletion. They have displayed a rather alarming NOTLISTENING attitude, brushing off attempts at correction to things like "Wikipedia should be a...resource for AI training", "the more links the better", and finishing it all up with "I am utterly amazed that this is controversial" (hint: when a dozen different editors say it's problematic, it might just be problematic). A similar discussion at WT:PHYS has also been started, with similar results. Minutes after I nominated Organic dye for deletion (it had zero incoming links) they created 50 incoming links in a clearly POINTY response. Similarly, they brushed off being told that linking to dab pages like stellar explosion was not overly helpful.

Fmadd is clearly not getting the point, which is why we're here. The overlinking needs to stop, and the wanton creation of barely-usable redirects needs to stop. While we shouldn't just delete every redirect they've created, there are a bunch of them that could use some serious scrutiny and a ton of overlinking that needs to be looked at. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have had conversations as well. To be fair: Fmadd is a relatively new user and has not yet fully grasped that Wikipedia is a community project that works by consensus. He thinks Wikipedia should operate the way he wants it to, not the way it does. I do not believe any sanction is warranted at the present time, but what is required is someone with a bit more clout than us humble users to firmly explain how things work around here. With any luck, that should solve the problem. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that being relatively new is a good reason to avoid sanctions here. 10 months isn't that new, especially with 10,000 edits (I've been on here for a little over 10 months and 11,000 edits, and I understand consensus, it's a fairly easy thing to understand). 1/3 of his edits were in the past month, but you should have a general idea on how Wikipedia works with that number of edits. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit bothered by the fact that although User:Fmadd has commented on their talk page about the discussion here, and has been very busy editing, they haven't responded here. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought this was a discussion between admins. Fmadd (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

All this fretting about over-linking, when it turns out there's already a script that can change the colour of links (e.g. .. controversial pages can be marked and they no longer 'compete for the users attention'). I said I was amazed it was contraversial, because I can imagine there are technical solutions. With whats there now you can indeed de-highlight 'contraversial' articles. I bet the script or server side software could be further modified to mark certain types of page 'trivial' within a domain (hence blanked out by default) (e.g. all physics articles dont highlight trivial physics terms, all ) etc. I got the impression this is more about a 'priestly cult' mindset. It's only by arguing I managed to discover the highlighting script (several days in, he knew about it all along..) Fmadd (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fmadd/linkclassifier.css there's an example, I was able to modify that link-highlighter script to display 'articles marked for deletion' blanked out. Fmadd (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd, has made other kinds of problematic edits as well, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#User:Fmadd and destruction of article leads. Paul August ☎ 17:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems like there might be some competency issues lurking about. If someone informs you that you are causing a problem, it's not a normal response to search for a technical solution that allows you to continue to cause the problem it's meant to solve. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

lol. as I thought, priestly cult mentality. Instead of improving a system, some people prefer to nit-pick, criticise others and so on. Thats why it was only many days into the discussion that someone finally told me there *is* actually already a way to colour code links by category. It would be easy to have a category of 'exploratory links', invisible by default, which are only visible if a user goes out of their way to highlight them with a custom colour scheme. Thats the first step, but imagine if wikipedia had a concept of 'prerequisites', where you could flag content according to what knowledge is pre-requisite, and dynamically blank content depending on what a user has clarified they already know. Fmadd (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd, you're missing the forest for the trees. We're telling you that per the Manual of Style, the overlinking guidelines, and (based on other conversations) SURPRISE and LEAD conventions, you should not be creating all of these redirects, and you are saying we need to start colour-coding our links better. In other words, you're missing the bloody point. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

missing the point... there's already a facility for colour coding. My intuition was, "it is surprising that we fret about overlinking". There must be a way to improve the system such that contributing information is never a problem. Fmadd (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No Primefac, I think you're the one missing the point. If we wrote a script that flipped all our articles around for us, then we could write everything backwards, and it would automatically fix it. But instead you want to be close minded and demand that we conform to your cult of directionality. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

nice straw man there. I'm talking about colour coding (which already exists) not writing articles backwards. Fmadd (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You sure are. TimothyJosephWood 19:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fmadd, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the central point here, which has nothing whatsoever to do with color coding. The concern is that redirects you are creating should not exist at all and you are adding unnecessary links in articles. You may be surprised that this is a real concern, but it is, and brushing it off by suggesting the rest of us use a script or whatever to mitigate it is not the correct response. You don't have to agree with the concern, but you are expected to respect the established policy and consensus on this issue. If you'd like to change the overlinking policy you are welcome to try, but unless and until such an effort is succesful you should abide by it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Fmadd, I agree with Beeblebrox. I'm going to ask you to stop adding links and creating redirects against current policy. You are very welcome to argue for changes in those policies, and to propose changes to the software to allow multi coloured links to facilitate those changes. But until you achieve a consensus that those policies should change, you must comply with them. Deliberately editing in contravention of policies just because you don't agree with them is disruptive. If you continue to do so, you will blocked from editing Wikipedia. WJBscribe (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I also think Fmadd just needs to slow it way down in general. They are editing so fast it is impossible to conceive that they are really thinking things through. I see formatting errors and creation of double redirects in just their last few edits, with no sign that they are even aware of them. There's no rush, and it's always better to think about what you are doing before you do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I rather fear that the double redirects are intentional, not accidental creations - see my comment below... WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've left them a warning. Regardless of if they're right or wrong (though they're wrong) editing practices should be checked until a resolution is reached. Primefac (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's another example of the sort of problem this is creating - see Remote_control_(general). This appears to have been created by Fmadd on the basis that it will one day be a page with content (despite the fact that the disambiguator "(general)" is not used). See incoming links: [139] Numerous articles have had their links changed to point to Remote_control_(general). In addition several redirects have been changed to point to that page, apparently to deliberately create double redirects. This seems to be part of a master plan to restructure our articles about Remote controls and related topics. But instead of getting consensus to change that structure first, Fmadd has created a "web of redirects" to accommodate his vision of how the articles should be structured. WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As a note, I reinstated the declined speedy and cleaned up that mess. Triple redirects! WTF. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• A thought regarding this incredibly disruptive editing - their edits have to be undone individually; we can't just unlink all links to their silly redirects because they used to point to valid targets... what a friggin nightmare. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  I've read some (not all) of the discussions with Fmadd, and my take is that this is a user who not only doesn't get it, he doesn't want to get it. He's even trotted out that old saw, the cabal of admins, in the form of a "priestly cult". Frankly, I don't believe more argumentation with him is going to stop him doing what he intends to do, so I think it's time for admins to consider a sanction of some sort to stop him. My first choice would be an indef block that would not be lifted until he promised to undo the mess he made, but more kind-hearted souls might prefer a topic ban on creating redirects and making wikilinks - I just feel it's likely that he wouldn't follow it, and we'd be back at an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) see below. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Question 1: block or no?

Slight edit conflict with BMK above, but good timing I guess. First question is easy - if Fmadd refuses to accept the requests made here to alter their behaviour, do we block, or just impose a tban on creating redirects (i.e. a page-creation ban)? Primefac (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• tban on page creation. I think a while actually making productive edits will allow Fmadd to see why we do things the way we do. After six months or so they're welcome to request the return of their page-creation abilities. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked per their replies here. If this discussion "destroyed their faith in humanity" Wikipedia probably isn't for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• support indef. This isn't going to go well. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban on page creation for about 6 months, where violating the topic ban is grounds for an immediate indefinite block. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 07:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Question 2: all those pesky redirects

Fmadd has made a pretty big mess. The question becomes what to do about their past editing history. I see two main options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Could whoever posted the above please sign their post? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Added {{Unsigned}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (slap on the wrist)

Fmadd's past redirect actions are (mostly) overlooked. Interested parties are welcome to comb through them and RFD/delete/edit/restructure as desired, but no "official" action takes place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Added {{Unsigned}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (more involved response)

Fmadd's edits are all looked over by some sort of task force. Unnecessary redirects (such as Particle physics experiment and India gained independence) are deleted and the pages that linked to them are reverted to their pre-redirect status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support and willing to help out. There are just too many ridiculous redirects to tie up at RFD. I think a well-documented task force page (similar to the SvG case) would allow for transparency and some measure of REFUND should a reasonable redirect be deleted. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• This is pretty much where we are at. Their stubborn refusal to even try and see the issue has now earned them a block, but there's still a mess to clean up. Beeblebrox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• I will freely admit that I don't understand Fmadd's master plan, so I'd be useless in trying to help undo it - but let me ask this: is it not possible to simply run down his edits in the opposite order from which they were made, and arrive at a state before Fmass started his work? Yes, surely we would lose some edits which were actual improvements, but that seems like a small price to pay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken, I wanted to propose a "nuclear" Proposal 3 wherein we do just that - roll back everything, delete everything, and pick up the pieces afterwards. I wasn't sure how well that would be taken, so I didn't propose it. I suppose the worst that can happen is it isn't acceptable, so I'll do so now. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  Added {{Unsigned}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (nuclear option)

Roll back all edits, delete all pages. Small team to go through and undelete the few pages that might have been useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talk • contribs) 12:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would support this if it was changed a little bit:

1. List all created pages in userspace

2. Roll back all edits that were not on pages this user created

3. Review all pages in the userspace

4. Delete all unapproved pages in the userspace

We did the same thing with wp:x1 (with the exception of number 2), and it worked well, I think the same approach will work here. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That would work. I've already started compiling a list at User:Primefac/Fmadd. I completely agree with rolling back all of their mainspace edits, since 99% of the time it appears all they were doing was creating a link to an odd redirect. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

In relation to point 2, I should note that Fmadd is sometimes correct that the links should be changed. The problem is that many did not need changing or, if they did, he often made the problem worse. We will lose some useful work if we mass revert his edits instead of reviewing each of them, but I estimate only about 10% based on what I've looked at in relation to Remote control. For example, there were some instances in which he changed articles that linked to that page when they would more naturally refer to Teleoperation (i.e. the process of controlling electronics from a distance, not the device that enables someone to do it). However, instead of linking directly to Teleoperation, he redirected Remote controlled to Teleoperation (which probably makes sense and shouldn't be reverted), and linked to that redirect (which doesn't). WJBscribe (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WJBscribe, I concur that there is a small proportion of their edits that were actually useful, but given that I spent an hour untangling the "remote control" issue last night and ended up only keeping four edits out of about 100, I'd say in this case we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, if only for the sanity of those draining the tub. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Primfac, Gamebuster19901, and WJBscribe. This is the best option. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I support the nuclear option, given the downside seems so low. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd support this iff the percentage of good contributions reported above is accurate. @Primefac:, yow is the listing coming? Do you have something the community can look at? Tazerdadog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, I've gotten User:Primefac/Fmadd into a reasonable shape. I've sorted the redirects by incoming link count, which will make proofing them a bit easier. I haven't sorted through their articles yet, but that's not quite as important. Primefac (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

After a spot-check of my own, I have to disagree with the assessment of Primefac and WJBScribe. I found that about 50% of the redirects were a net positive, especially with small tweaks applied. Therefore I have to Oppose this option. A more detailed review is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, are you willing to support option 2? Primefac (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I support mass revert, unless somebody else wants to wade through it all in more detail. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Option 2, possibly combined with X3 is the appropriate response in my opinion. 50% is an unacceptable error rate, and based on my evaluation both a nuke and a slap on the wrist would have that error rate. I'd be willing to wade through a significant chunk of it. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

My 10% figure above was stated to be based upon review of Remote control based redirects. If link changes/redirections in other topic areas show as much as 50% positive edits, then I agree that this calls for a more nuanced step-by-step review of the edits. Such an approach would also allow editors to correct occasions where Fmadd identified a problem but applied the wrong solution - the optimal result is neither a revert nor keep Fmadd's edits in those instances! WJBscribe (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  Added {{Unsigned}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on the above questions and proposals

Fmadd, I guess this is the part where I ask you if you're willing to take into consideration the views expressed in this discussion as well as on the various talk pages you've been involved with. To summarize a few of the points:

• Decrease the number of redirects you create. Start discussions to see if they're necessary. Pipe otherwise.
• Slow down on the editing. Thing don't need to happen immediately. Finding out an idea isn't the best after two days is a lot easier to deal with if you then don't have to go back and fix fifty pages afterwards.
• Start discussions. Yes, I mentioned this above, but this goes for things like moving remote control unilaterally. Consider all page moves to be potentially contentious, and ask if it's a good idea first.

There are other points mentioned above, but these are the major ones. Does this sound reasonable? Primefac (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

well I can take a break from this, and amuse myself somewhere else for a while. I'm not going to stay focussed on making major changes if it takes several days of discussion.. I just wont bother. thats why I liked blasting my way through one issue at a time. If you dont like redirects then my workflow can't be used here. I might as well give up. Thanks for destroying what little faith in humanity I had.. they're just redirects.. and you have to get all "priestly-cult"/"control freak" over it. The point of redirects (or any other abstractions) is breaking problems down into smaller pieces, at which point solutions crystallise out more easily. Tension in "the plan" or ambiguity is just a sign of something else to fix. I've seen this situation many times before. Some people have more to gain from problems, than solutions. Fmadd (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that's enough. Deploying block hammer. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If Fmadd hasn't been here before under another name, I'll eat my aussie hat. Flat Out (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

He seems fond of the "priestly cult" meme - anyone recall another editor using that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"Easier to make mass changes and argue later" seems to be a hallmark, this is their work too Flat Out (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If Fmadd isn't already back as Special:Contributions/Ll928, I'll eat my non-Aussie hat (it's got fewer corks). Dukwon (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• As much as I've been opposed to similar solutions in the past, I'm really leaning toward the nuclear option, at least on anything that's purely a redirect. Looking through several pages of their creations, they seems to be an attempt to...I guess...manually create a search function? Probably fully a quarter of them are created as questions e.g., "should X redirect to Y?" or "is A the proper term for B?" I'm just not seeing much in the way of harmful collateral damage that would in any way outweigh the inordinate amount of time it would take to sort through these individually. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

We could expand wp:x1 to include redirects created by this user. Just an idea I thought should be mentioned. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. The main question in my mind, and I really don't know precisely how this works with the admin bit, but if all article creations are nuke-able with the click of a button, is there anything worth saving in the ~9% of their article creations that are not redirects, which would justify having to tag and delete 950 redirects. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I won't support or oppose nuking everything outright without a review, but if it comes to it, I wouldn't get upset about it. I've added a different proposal under the Nuke proposal. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New Speedy Deletion Criteria in Response

Since there seems to be consensus at this time to revert these edits, and issues VERY similar to this have happened before (see wp:X1) I am proposing a new speedy deletion criteria.

X3: Pages created en-masse by a single user, where the community has established broad consensus that the pages are harmful to the encyclopedia, would create significant backlogs in their deletion discussion areas, and the reviewing admin believes that it will not survive a deletion discussion. Once the community establishes that the backlog is cleared, normal procedures resume.

It is similar to wp:x1, except it can be applied to more situations so we don't have to keep creating new X criteria. X1 would be merged into X3.

Deletion reasons made under this criteria should contain a link to the discussion where consensus was established, and say "TYPE OF PAGE" created by "USER", to distinguish what situation the pages were deleted in. A list of situations where this criteria has been used should be created.

Example of deletion message: "Redirects created by User:Example, see discussion. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 18:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that. I should have the full list of redirects soon, which would give an indication of how much this criteria would be needed. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This is more of a procedural point, but wouldn't this really be an expansion of X1 rather than the creation of a new criteria? TimothyJosephWood 18:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I made it an X3 is because some deletion reasons currently just say "X1", and you wouldn't know that it was a Neelix redirect if X1 was expanded. It would be better to retire X1 and continue removing Neelix redirects under X3. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 20:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Does R3 "implausible redirects" already cover the case where a redirect is a special case of an existing general article/redirect? e.g. 3D unit vector when there's already unit vector Dukwon (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Answer: No. R3 only covers redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. Because special cases are not typos nor misnomers, R3 does not apply in that case. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support the creation of a X3 criteria for his redirects, and DAB pages. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment If community consensus is necessary for a case to be added to this, isn't it just as easy for the community to authorise an X number criterion at the same time? I don't think this happens often enough for us to worry about running out of numbers. I can see this being open to the usual misunderstanding that many speedy criteria are. I'm not against the expansion of CSD criteria, but I think that perhaps keeping a specific number attached to a particular disaster one might be easier in the long run than having a catch-all criterion. I may well be missing something. (I know I'm missing my tea, and might see things differently later...) Peridon (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It would take longer to get consensus for a new speedy deletion criteria than to get consensus for invoking an already existing one. A perfect example is this discussion. A discussion similar to this would have to take place every time. In the future, someone could just propose the use of X3 instead of creating a new X. We also wouldn't have to create new template every time, we could just use X3 with values. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 20:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose creating a new speedy criteria that could potentially apply to any user, but would support X3 being specifically in relation to contributions by Fmadd (talk · contribs). This situation is rare enough that we can afford to take the time to add to CSD on a user-by-user basis. WJBscribe (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose already covered by existing criteria. If a user were creating pages in specific contravention of a ban, WP:CSD#G5 is covered. WP:CSD#G6 is sort of the WP:IAR of deletion criteria as well, if you have a good specific rationale, which is likely to be uncontroversial, G6 should cover it. Especially if a community consensus has already determined that some large block of articles should be speedy deleted as part of a long discussion, then someone could just tag each one as {{db-g6|rationale = <link to original discussion>}} should suffice. I'm already troubled by the existence of the X category anyways, and I'd not like to see it grow. --Jayron32 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment G6 only covers technical deletions, and G5 wouldn't work in this case as the user was not banned at the time the pages were created. Also, X3 would probably prevent more X's being created. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah...WP:BURO anyone? If the community assessment is that the stuff should be nuked, who gives two figs what bureaucratic code is applied to it, just go ahead and do it per WP:IAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If the community decides a nuke is in order, then the pages should simply be nuked, and the edit summary should link back to this discussion. On the other hand, if the community decides a manual review of the edits is in order, a speedy criterion to keep everybody on the same page makes good sense. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Didn't we have that discussion already a few weeks back? The reason we use certain designations is that any user can see the designation in the logs and know why the deletion took place. The proposed X3 would mean people had to search for this discussion first. In this specific case, unlike the Neelix one, it would probably not be a terrible strain on WP:RFD if those redirects were listed there instead. We should take care not to create new speedy criteria unless it's really necessary. Alternatively, just nuke all the redirects he created, they are cheap and can be recreated easily. Regards SoWhy 21:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per SoWhy. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support as an useful criterion for users that are not blocked but created redirects en masse, as nuking is only useful toward indefinitely blocked users with account creation blocked and autoblock enabled. Neelix is an example, but we need to stop users from creating redirects en masse using a new speedy deletion criterion, instead of creating a new one for each of those users. The name I propose for the criterion is R4, because I believe it will be permanent. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate global reverts

A great number of non-redirect contributions were just reverted out by Primefac, which does not seem supported by consensus above and is contrary to existing policy and precedent. For those arguing that nothing Fmadd did was not a redirect problem, you are very wrong, and this has been a grave error. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Last night I spent the better part of an hour undoing a mess they made with remote control - they moved it to another location, changed 100+ wikilinks to unnecessary redirects, and generally made a mess of things. In every instance I've looked, they've done this. In one instance they changed pair production into Electron–positron pair production, which is a redirect to pair production! I did not find any good reason not to nuke everything and sift through the ashes. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, that's one of the ones that tipped me something was going on. That one appears to be connected to the problems called out above. Hoever, Pair-instability supernova didn't have anything I see as a problem, he added two perfectly good links (one via a redirect, but a link should have been there from that term, and the other one went straight in to the existing article). So, question: is my watchlist the only two articles with a 50% obvious error rate for a global revert, or was the global revert too aggressive?... Sample size small, but so far I am not impressed... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• [140] in "Second processor" where Fmadd removed a redundant word. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• [141] in Zeus Web Server where he linked Static and Dynamic Web Pages (appropriate, good links) via redirects (inappropriate). Just reverting was wrong-o. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ...annnd the same thing in Utopia Documents, a good link via a redirect that should have gone direct instead. And those three were just the last three things you reverted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Either fix the problems you see, or just file it under collateral damage and let's get out of the morass and back to editing an encyclopedia. I don't see this kind of nit-picking as being very useful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I also don't find the "problems" you're highlighting here as terribly significant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 5) Their astronomy work was... less bad than the other stuff. Since I checked them all earlier, I can tell you - every single DAB they created they went in and created 5-10 links to it, regardless of if it even made sense (which it didn't). I found a huge copy-paste page move (which I did fix, by the way) as well as a ridiculous number of anchors placed in the first sentence of the article. Half of their edit summaries were "I don't know what this links to, maybe we can fix it later?". I will not deny that I undoubtedly reverted some decent edits, but I know that I fixed more than I broke, and by a significant margin. If you want to crawl through every edit I made, feel free to make a list and post it on my page, but at that point it's just as easy for you to hit undo as it is for me. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delaunay triangulation which was the fifth most recent thing reverted. With all due respect Beyond my Ken and Primefac, this is not collateral damage. This is clear evidence that "nuke it all from orbit" was the wrong thing to do here. I would be perfectly happy to take some fraction of the 900-plus edits that were reverted and fix them, but the right approach is what we do with copyvios and list them all out and have people take chunks of them and review them. And given the error rate in the blanket reversion, I suggest we do so from a position of undoing all the reverts and then cleaning up the underlying edits, rather than having to back through the reverts the hard way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• You've pointed out a few trivial errors: 4 out of 900-plus. That's hardly establishing a significant error rate. Also, I can;t believe you're using copyvio as an example of a procedure to follow: if you look at the copyvio area, you'll note that some of those have lingered there unchecked for a very long time, despite the hard work done by Brownhairedgirl and others. Here we have a case that's confined to a single editor, with what appears to be a fairly low error rate from nuking (or at least a significant error rate has yet to be established). Better, in my opinion, to nuke them all, and then fix the ones that didn't need nuking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• GWH: If you're pointing out these supposedly non-trivial errors here, why aren't you reverting them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• • Those were 5 errors in seven checks; the last 5 reverts Primefac made (time wise) and the two articles I had watchlisted. So my error rate is over 70% on that sample. 4 out of 5 on the last 5 reverts, which are random vs the ones I watchlist (which aren't randomly selected, they're both astronomy/physics related, which I will accept for the sake of argument may have been better done). Maybe we should check some other random set of them, pick somewhere for me to start in the 900 and how many you think is reasonable (5 more? 10?) I am perfectly happy to / will fix those 5 articles, but I want to start doing so after we determine what the global solution is. If we have to undo all 900 reverts I'd rather baseline that than patch a few of them and then have to untangle it after. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • 37, 194, 477, 635, 743. Take 5 edits starting at each of those numbers, examine them, and determine the error rate for those 25 edits. (Don't worry about precision in counting, the numbers are just pseudo-random starting points - any five starting points throughout the sample will do.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Going backwards from [142] as there have been updates since my last comments... (apologies, going to create list, then have to get on train, then will check when I get home, so need some time for the details...)

• First group: [143] this was an inappropriate link, [144] complicated - old link to central processor unit, new link to category of families of CPUs that he created, right answer is probably a new article to explain what a central processor unit family is (the CPU article doesn't now) - neither Fmadd nor the revert actual best solution, [145] new link to redirect to category he created - not obviously wrong but revertable per discussion above, [146] one link replaced three; link to redirect to category (same as prior entry) that was less subject-appropriate than the original three, probably wrong of Fmadd [147]

two links - first: straightforwards, correct link. Second: created improper redirect, but a direct link to target was appropriate - right solution should have been to direct-link the second instead of via the redirect. Reverts respectively right, (neither), right per consensus, right, wrong/should have fixed instead for 2 halves Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Second group: [148] two links to one link via a redirect into the second link's article - neither way best, should probably be single link to anchor in Matrix (mathematics) where real and complex matricies are defined, [149] new link to the same topic problem as first entry second group - same solution, [150] same as first, second entries, [151] same as first, second, third entries, [152] ah, new problem. Link to redirect (consensus bad) that should have direct linked to a vanchor I believe was appropriate in Addressing mode which was reverted out as part of all of this, so is broken now. four (complicated, should go to vanchor that was never placed instead); fifth should have been direct linked to vanchor that should be replaced (how do we score *that*...?) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Third group: [153], [154], [155], [156], [157]
• Fourth group: (approx start) [158], [159], [160], [161], [162]
  • Plus next one: [163] just because I watchlist it, will not count for 25
• Fifth group: [164], [165], [166], [167], [168]

(bottom of list) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, five of Primefac's reverts of Fmadds edits show up on my watch list, all of which I checked, and only one of Fmadd's edits were, in my view, OK (which I restored). Paul August ☎ 02:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ll928

• Ll928 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

New user LL928 and Fmadd seem to overlap quite a bit. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. Clearly a sockpuppet. Blocked. WJBscribe (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

50504F

• 50504F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... not a 100% match, but I think the early stuff was to get to autoconfirmed. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In a surprisingly display of good faith, I have unblocked them. Talk about being in the wrong place editing the wrong redirects at the wrong time.... Primefac (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Refocusing

There, at some point here, were definitely some coherent options that got muddled by formatting and a lot of other issues. There seemed to be some general support for mass reversion and deletion, which itself got muddled by bureaucratic issues about creating a new CSD criteria, which then got muddled by specific reversions. So I guess my question to those involved is: what are the options that are still on the table, can we condense those into a couple that have general consensus, and can we decide between them? TimothyJosephWood 22:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: can chime in here, but unless I'm counting wrong, it appears to me that all of Fmadd's edits have been nuked, pursuant to the consensus in the sections above this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be impressed to find that all 1k of them have been taken care of, but if that's the case, and everyone's fine with it, then I suppose we can close and move on with ourselves. TimothyJosephWood 23:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I definitely don't see the consensus to nuke in the sections above. I'm happy if they were all legitimately reviewed, but I doubt that is the case. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The consensus seems quite clear to me, and I applaud Primefac's decision to follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Like BMK I support blanket removal. Those complaining that the removals should not have occurred without weeks of argument are welcome to check all edits and reinstate those that are genuinely helpful to the encyclopedia. If Wikipedia ever grinds to a halt, it will be because of the navel gazing and pointless bickering that occurs when the community responds to inappropriate contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted about 1700 of Fmadd's (current) edits, and I've been undone about 20 times. An error rate of <2% is perfectly acceptable to me. Due to some (understandable) hesitation (mostly by Tazerdadog) I have not nuked all of his redirects.

Given the apparently p<0.05 validity of their edits, my guess would be <5% of their redirects would be salvageable. I've taken a couple of days off to clear my head from the "nuke everything" blinders, and will be going through User:Primefac/Fmadd and seeing what could legitimately be kept. Hopefully I can get through this by the end of the week, and I'm thinking something like another week after that if there is no further input I'll delete what's in the "delete" pile. I'm pretty sure I started a talk page discussion and yall are welcome to join in. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well, if Primefac is committed to sorting through the issue, especially if Tazerdadog is willing to act as a second opinion, which should and seems to be respected by PF, is there anything here left which requires administrator attention or broad community input? TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think it would be beneficial to hear from @Georgewilliamherbert:, who objected most strongly (but politely) to the nuking, to see whether his examination of the 25 edits I suggested has changed his mind. Certainly, the complexity of what he has reported so far has not changed my mind that nuking was the right option, as opposed to having numerous editors dedicate large portions of their lives to undoing the cat's cradle Fmadd created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please ping me @Primefac: when you have the list of redirects to be deleted, and I'll check them over. I wish you hadn't done the mass rollback on Fmadd's edits, but I will acknowledge that consensus might not be with me on that point and it doesn't seem to be breaking the wiki. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, will do. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, Primefac: I'm just gonna say, I think you guys may be in the wrong place, since this seems a heckuva lot like civil editors cooperating to work through a well reasoned compromise. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed at ANI. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll notify the media. EEng 14:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that I posted User talk:Primefac/Fmadd#Am I allowed to modify these redirects? about a few redirects in particular I thought were plausible or fixable. I am weakly in favor of keeping the ones I mentioned; because of that doubt, I have yet to update Primefac's list, but I will do so ASAP. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: @Primefac: TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

IP user blanking 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.

---

I realize that signed-in users can do pretty much what they want to their user pages, but I'm wondering about this kind of blanking by a non-logged in IP since it might be a shared adddress. Coretheapple (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That's different from actual blanking, and seems appropriate to revert. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Which I did, that was plain as day vandalism. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's our friend from the just closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by user:184.145.42.19. Looks more like blanking to me, I have no doubt it's the same user - it's pretty civil compared to usual. It's their talk page. I don't see that they can't do that - who doesn't love a nice Spotted dick. Shouldn't they be notified then - they've already quite rightfully objected once about lack of notification here. Or alternatively, can we just close it, because I think all that this is doing is escalating it. Nfitz (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I reverted it User:RickinBaltimore. I don't want to WP:DEADHORSE. It's pretty tame, and I think they have the right to do say that. The big issue is the failure to notify. Can we just close this discussion and pretend it never happened and not WP:BLUDGEON them? Nfitz (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I'm reverting it back. That's vandalism, and there is NO reason to allow it. It's not WP:BLUDGEONing them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You could block the IP and take away its talk page privilege, while you're at it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I could, but I'm not going to. Hopefully cooler heads prevail, and they can go on editing without this drama. That would be a bludgeon, at least to me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edit-warring to revert back to an obscene comment is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the reaction to a very mild joke about pudding. Why are we not letting sleeping dogs lie here. Are we prejudiced against IPs? Nfitz (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Telling someone to have some pudding is an obscene comment? It's a bit edgy, that's all. It's their talk page. I've seen far worse, and I can't imagine anyone would be changing that, if it wasn't for their block history. It's their talk page. I don't see the issue here. I'm more concerned about our failure to notify. Nfitz (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• User:RickinBaltimore and Baseball Bugs. I see you have reverted my edit. Why are you harassing this IP and editing their talk page unnecessarily? I don't think this is acceptable. Nfitz (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to WP:DEADHORSE. Then stop. TimothyJosephWood 15:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Technically, it's not their talk page. If it was the user talk for a registered an account which only one individual could log into and use, I'd be more inclined to just leave the post be. However, it is the talk page for an IP account which means that another completely unrelated editor could possibly use the page it and could simply remove the post if they wanted to in the course of normal talk page editing per WP:BLANKING. There is a specific purpose to user talk pages, after all, and this does seem close to WP:TPG#Removing harmful posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are we closing a very active discussion? There's no doubt it's the same user. If this was some random noise, sure. But this was quite clearly a follow-up post, after we closed the previous case, shortly before. By doing this, we are harassing an bludgeoning the user. Why? Why are WE escalating? This doesn't at all meet WP:TPG which clearly says This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; . This is a user who is under no sanction or restriction's talk page? This will only create unnecessary wikidrama. Why not discuss here as requested? What' the harm in leaving the user's talk page they way they left it? Nfitz (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You're the one doing the escalating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz I respect what you are saying, but that's about as clear as day vandalism as it gets. If they had blanked their page with "go away", "leave me alone", etc. I honestly wouldn't care. Telling users "eat a dick" (and I don't care it was linked to "spotted dick"), is uncivil, and not appropriate. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid the escalation. It's their page - why is anyone even going to see this? And it's such a mild comment - it's a pudding - it's clearly humour with a bit of an edge to it. I've seen far, far worse from admins. User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Drmies you were involved in the original case - what do you think (sorry to drag you in again). I think it's just a bit of pouting, and mild edgy humour. I feel by overreacting to this, we are going to alienate the user, and create another drama. Particularly given the failure to notify the user that this discussion is taken place, after they've already taken exception to that happening once before. Nfitz (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man Honestly, who gives a crap? Do you really not have anything better to do? Here, there are 23,000 articles with too few wikilinks. Go fix some of them, and stop obsessing about an obvious vandal and an edit that probably doesn't matter either way. TimothyJosephWood 16:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• OMG. Are we still on this tip? 5 million articles and 20 million RfCs and 50,000 AfD discussions and we're talking about an IP talk page? Let me play the old guy here. a. this is a waste of time. b. the IP is a bit of a dick. c. Nfitz, please do NOT go around reverting an admin on such pages--this is not a "content" edit where you can play around until you hit 3R. d. RickinBaltimore, I think you meant in that edit summary that the dick comment was vandalism, not Nfitz's revert? I don't necessarily agree that it was vandalism, but it certainly was asinine. e. the IP has a certain claim to that talk page and they are free to blank what they want; they are not free to make asshole comments even with a wink--I think many of us have run out of fucks to give and don't find this funny anymore. f. as far as I'm concerned the IP is free to blank that talk page and leave a non-asinine comment, or a picture of a cat or whatever. g. as far as I'm concerned almost everyone who's been making comments on that talk page is continuing to beat that poor horse. h. I'm going to close this, playing the trump card of being an administrator and stuff. i. I am fully aware that now I sound like a dick, but at least I ain't no pudding--I'm more like coq au vin, a succulent dish made out of a stringy old rooster. Do NOT leave out the mushrooms when you make that, and realize that bacon is a poor substitute for real lardons. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

edit conflict

I give a crap. I was involved in the original discussion. I put some effort into it, and I thought we'd talked them off the ledge. It's not an obvious vandal - look at the edit history. It all points to someone who actually cares about the project - but whose way of speaking is just a bit raw for some to handle. And yes, they went way, way, too far. But I believed they could be productive. So I put some effort into it. And then, when the whole thing is finally closed, and we've got a fairly minor joke left on their talk page - just their talk page - along comes the nanny patrol to re-open the whole debate. And re-open it without notifying the user - in complete violation of the procedures here. A wise man once said "users should not be nannying other users' talk page" - and there's no doubt that this is what it is - there's been no indication of IP shift in 4 months - seems unlikely that hours later it shifted, and the person came straight to Wikipedia. I really think this edit matters - I think we are essentially (looking as though) we are the ones who are trolling and baiting. I don't think this is right at all. Nfitz (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Threat?

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

---

62.255.118.6 (talk · contribs) posted a nonsense reply here at WP:ANI, which I removed.[169] Ever since he has been pestering me about it on my talkpage, with all kinds of bad faith accusations and insults.[170][171] Now he posted what I think is in addition a veiled threat.[172] To admin discretion. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You're overreacting quite a bit here. Saying "if you keep breaking the rules you might be sanctioned" is a response that anyone would give when their comments are refactored. I see nothing wrong with their original comment (regarding R Kelly) and you should not have removed it. This is a non-issue; there have been more acerbic comments placed by admins on this page. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Continued Edit Warring by User:Xenophrenic after Expiration of Block

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

---

Admin: I withdraw my proposal, It was too soon for taking this to ANI. Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic, after being blocked, barely escaping a topic ban at ANI and having a second ANI report opened about him, has continued to edit war on articles related to the topic that got him banned. User:Fram, the administrator who blocked User:Xenophrenic, told User:Xenoprenic to "leave this category and anything related to it alone". User:Xenophrenic's contributions reveal that he has not only ignored this administrative injunction, but has flagrantly disobeyed it. At this time, I would recommend that we proceed with a topic ban on all articles related to atheism and religion, broadly construed, so that User:Xenophrenic does not waste the time and energy of any more of Wikipedia's constructive users.

User:Xenophrenic has been notified of this report on his Talk page.--Jobas (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jobas: Diffs please. Claiming with a link to an archived thread that's quite long but shows fairly limited support for a TBAN that the user "barely escaped" a TBAN, and claiming with no diffs that the user is edit-warring, is not helpful. Nor is showing a diff of an admin who blocked the user encouraging them to edit other areas (contrary to what you appear to believe, admins are not allowed unilaterally impose topic bans on editors, so the advice is not binding). Their block expired a week ago, and they have made a bunch of edits since then. I'm seeing a fair few article edits (including some reverts) and some talk page edits. The reverts are mostly one per article, it would seem, which makes the edit-warring claim somewhat questionable. Apologies if I am reading this wrong, but if you don't provide evidence it's not my fault if I go looking for evidence for you and can't find it wihout excessive effort. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

聖 WP:EW, says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so"

While User:Xenophrenic emptied a Category:Persecution by atheists of all of the articles therein As stated by the administrator User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Xenophrenic emptied a category of all of the articles therein and then nominated it for deletion. User:BrownHairedGirl (in addition to User:Marcocapelle) admonished User:Xenophrenic that this was very inappropriate and asked him to rollback his unsettling edits (User:Xenophrenic did not comply with this request), again before his last block he emptied the category without to discussing it; the CfD ended in "no consensus" and User:Xenophrenic was in the process of being topic banned for his actions. His edit summary stated: rvt insertion of unsourced, so I reverted some his edit pending the current discussion initiated by User:John Carter that covers keeping or deleting all categories relevant to religious/atheistic persecution.

Now after a week of being blocked he keeping making the same edit on articles related to the topic that got him banned without to discussing it, as you can see here, here, here, here, here, here. What I suggested in Marcocapelle talk page was: "There is a current discussion about rename and purge initiated by User:John Carter that covers the renominate all categories relevant to religious/atheistic persecution. it would be prudent if Xenophrenic participated in the discussion created by User:John Carter instead of keeping edit warning", So instead of keeping removing the category and edit warning or revert, I guess he should participated in the discussion created by User:John Carter and wait till we got clear consensus, but the problem he ignore to wait the result of the current debate and take unilateral side. Thanks and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jobas: Those edits all come from different articles. Even if they are all reverts (and they don't appear to be) they can only be edit-warring if he made reverts to the same articles previously. Reverting new edits once is perfectly in line with WP:BRD. And pointing out where other users disagreed with his edits previously also is not evidence of his disruption. You should stop acting like having x number of users disagreeing with someone makes them "wrong" or counts as a de facto TBAN -- for all the evidence you have provided, the two users you have named who disagree with Xenophrenic are tag-teaming with each other and with you, and are just as worthy of a TBAN as Xenophrenic. Above you say the same edit on articles related to the topic that got him banned -- you really need to familiarize yourself with the difference between a block and a ban before proposing bans. And the longer you refuse to provide evidence of disruption, the less likely I or other users will be to support any proposal you make. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jobas: By the way -- you may not be aware, but I am subject to an IBAN with one of the users you mentioned in the above post. If you could verify what I am referring to here and refrain from bringing them up in your responses to me, it would be appreciated. As I stated in another thread currently visible on this page, I have little patience for users who try to goad others into violating their own restrictions. I am assuming good faith at the moment (with regard to this issue -- it's becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith with regard to whether Xeno has been edit-warring), but if you continue writing like you did above after I have requested you stop I will be forced to ask someone else to request you stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Some advice needed. Fact is that the CfD discussion was closed as 'no consensus' implying the content of the page was restored to status quo ex ante. Fact is that the restore has now been unilaterally reverted, obviously by means of 1 revert per article. Now what? Should User:Jobas revert these changes and wait until User:Xenophrenic re-reverts them for the second time so that there is evidence of an edit war? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: "No consensus" means just that -- no consensus. Making edits that run contrary to what some users said in a no-consensus discussion is not edit-warring. Refusing to discuss said edits and continuing to revert regardless would be edit-warring, but all I'm seeing here is one user with a seriously flawed understanding of TBANs trying to propose sanctions on a user for violating a hypothetical TBAN that they are not currently subject to, and making non-EW edits that he doesn't like. It's becoming increasingly difficult to believe that Xeno could be the cause of whatever problem might exist here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a pretty indirect answer, I'm just assuming that the direct answer is yes. By the way you've made it perfectly clear that it's currently too soon for taking this to ANI and User:Jobas may better withdraw this case for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: It was not closed as "no consensus", it was closed as "no consensus - with caveats". There was no consensus in terms of a concrete next step, but the close explicitly stated 'I cannot see that any of the Keep votes have given any compelling reasons why the category should stay "as-is". Indeed, the majority of the Keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy.' and 'as given, the current title is frankly original research.' Presuming that Black Kite did not intend to retain original research, as would be the case in a typical "no consensus" close, Xenophrenic was right to remove the original research pending discussion of renaming the category. The only reason he appears worse in the sense of edit warring is because Eliko007 joined Jobas in restoring the category. Eliko007 is an WP:SPA, the majority of whose edits are to present the same edits/arguments as Jobas (or, perhaps it's more accurate to say, to argue against Xenophrenic -- I don't know; I'm not making a socking allegation here). Removing the category was the right call. Xenophrenic has been rather aggressive in some ways, but hasn't had an SPA reverting to offset the edit warring allegation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: There you go -- I learn something new every day. So Jobas et al. are the ones editing disruptively, and trying to force out a user who is undermining their disruption and being perhaps a little uncivil while doing it.

@Jobas: I am this close to proposing a WP:BOOMERANG for you (read: TBAN from all articles related to religion, broadly construed) following this. I have looked at a couple of your other edits unrelated to this, and they seem like, at best, we could do without them (OR -- in fact edit-warring -- to imply that Christians in Singapore are more educated/intelligent than non-Christians, implying without a source that one of the reasons there are a lot of atheists in Estonia is because of the Nazis...). If you withdraw your frivolous and unjustified proposal below, this thread will likely be closed as withdrawn or be archived and fade into the either, but I can't honestly see this working out in your favour at this point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Acutely my edit here it doesn't claims "Christians in Singapore are more educated/intelligent than non-Christians", the edit acutely compares between Singapore Christians and other Christian communities around the world, there is no mention in any place of non-Christians or other religions. And the edit in Estonian article it was quote of reference (World and Its Peoples: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Marshall Cavendish. p. 1066.), and it doesn't claims "there are a lot of atheists in Estonia is because of the Nazis", What the quote from the source said "This is in part, the result of Soviet actions and repression of religion". And the only mention in the quote about German occupation was "Many churches were destroyed in the German occupation of Estonia". Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Doy.

No, you added the claim that Christians are more likely to hold university degrees than adherents of other religions. Not only is this not accurate to what your source said (post-secondary =/= university), but it is clearly cherry-picked and clearly biased (the statistic is actually all-but identical for the Hindu and irreligious communities in Singapore). Regarding the Estonians edit: apologies for the misunderstanding. I looked at it in a rush and it looked like you were adding a massive chunk of text to the body. It still wasn't a minor edit, though -- please do not mark such edits as minor again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

God, I'm such an idiot!

@Jobas: So are you refusing to withdraw your proposal? Your above comment completely ignored the substance of my request and replied exclusively to my parenthetical clause.

If you post here again with anything other than My proposal is not supported by evidence. I apologize for the disturbance. I withdraw my proposal. then I think a boomerang will be in order, and I'd be willing to guess that others would agree.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for User:Xenophrenic on articles relating to Religion and Atheism, Broadly Construed

The following discussion is closed. 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: I withdraw my proposal, It is not supported by evidence, and was too soon for taking this to ANI. Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Despite being blocked and almost topic banned in his recent ANI discussion, User:Xenophrenic has once again proven himself incapable of learning from his mistakes and seems to be wasting the precious time of constructive editors on this encyclopedia. He blatantly ignored the order of an administrator and continues to edit war on the same things that got him censured in the first place.--Jobas (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Jobas has withdrawn this proposal. I've taken the liberty of striking it for him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• • I do not see any evidence above. Fram may have provided advice, but there is no requirement that such advice be followed, and certainly no requirement that it be followed "broadly construed" and indefinitely. Is all the indignation concerned with keeping Category:Persecution by atheists on articles like Chronicle of the Catholic Church in Lithuania? That kind of tagging-by-category is a very grubby form of POV pushing—does anyone really imagine that the Head Office of Atheists decreed that a particular religion be persecuted? Funny how the article does not mention anything to do with atheism that I can see. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jobas: Just to be clear what I meant by my most important point above and below: admins aren't allowed impose "orders" without prior community consensus, and ignoring/"violating" such "orders" is not sanctionable. To demonstrate how silly this is, I would ask why, if you think Xenophrenic already was subject to a TBAN, you would be proposing the same TBAN again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose pending some evidence in support of the claims being being made. I find it difficult to believe that an editor who has only made one revert per page over the course of a week has been "edit-warring", and the lack of evidence (combined with an apparent lack of understanding of how TBANs work -- admins can only unilaterally impose bans when discretionary sanctions are in play, and even then only when the subject has been clearly warned that discretionary sanctions may be applied) makes me very suspicious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This page is, as far as I'm aware, not entitled "keep posting the same thing over and over again until the editor I don't like gets topic banned". And that's coming from someone who was critical of Xenophrenic's editing the last time this tiresome issue got dragged into view. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - after being blocked, barely escaping a topic ban at ANI - I see as much support for a topic ban for you, Jobas, in that thread. You've continued the edit war, too, and after a close explicitly called the category original research (ergo, obviously, not appropriate to restore until renaming is sorted out). and having a second ANI report opened about him by an SPA who is either following Xenophrenic or following you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Constant misuse of WP:AIV and Twinkle by new editor

User:Vnonymous has demonstrated time[173] in[174] and time[175] again[176] that they do not understand correct procedure for warning users, when it's appropriate to use Twinkle warning templates, or using WP:AIV to report vandalism. Administrator intervention is needed, as the editor does not understand the responsibility involved with using tools such as Twinkle, as shown in unheeded warnings such as this[177]. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 09:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If he's filing inappropriate reports, maybe someone could point him toward the Counter-Vandalism Unit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with NinjaRobotPirate. Also, pointing the user to Wikipedia:Vandalism and helping to educate them on what is vandalism and what is not vandalism would be helpful as well. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah Except they are not responding to inquiries regarding their edits. Other editors have already tried. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the user is responding to messages and edits made on their talk page. I do see one message on the user's talk page here regarding a revert to vandalism that he didn't warn the editor for, but I don't see any others nor do I see any notices about bad reports left at AIV by the user. Am I missing something? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I'd be willing to mentor the user in fighting vandalism, if they agree to be mentored. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

ThePlatypusofDoom - EXCELLENT!!! Right on, dude!!! This is the exact solution that we need here; it'll give mentoring to the user and help them to learn and become experienced, and it'll address the concerns reported here. Vnonymous, what do you think? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the late response, as I thought I had already added this comment. I questioned the motives of above said editor on an questionable AIV report they left. They failed to respond to that, the request on their talk page left by User:L3X1 regarding template warnings, as well the ANI notice I left regarding this case. Checking their editing history, I see they are still active, yet they do no respond to any pings, talk page notices, or attempts to notify the editor of questions about their editing. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 12:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I agree with you, and Platypus's offer is very much appreciated, and your elation thereat is understandable given how rare such offers are around these parts, but ... you should probably tone it down a bit. The above really looked to me like sarcasm on the first and second read-through and the only reason I didn't call you out for it was because I put far more brainpower than should be necessary into figuring out that you were sincere. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My most sincere and humble apologies are owed to anybody who may have misinterpreted my previous response above as sarcasm in any way. I give you my promise and my assurance that I sincerely meant every word that I said above and was not trying to belittle or engage in mockery. Hijiri88 pretty much hits it right on the head -- offers to mentor and educate other editors like this (even if their intentions are questionable or even seem to be in bad faith) aren't common around here, and I guess it's sad in a way that giving ThePlatypusofDoom a well-deserved shout-out for doing this may have been interpreted as sarcasm or belittling at first glance. However, it was not; ThePlatypusofDoom made a genuine offer that I honestly felt deserved genuine gratitude and a "high five", and my response above was me giving him that well-deserved gratitude :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I first want to say that Boomer Vial's first link won't load for me, it brings up the editing form. I also wished to comment on my uw-warn that I gave Vnonymous. In my anti-vandalism efforts I tend to dislike when other editors haven't warned the offender, as it makes a successful AIV less likely, and takes up a lot of my time going through the suspect's contribs checking to see if they have vandalised before.. I even templated myself! If the user in question is making bad AIV reports, would placing a uw-AIV on their talk page be correct? It certainly is strange that the user would continue edit and ignore everything on their talk page, unless he feels that it doesn't not require his attention. Thanks L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

References

L3X1 Apologies about the bunk diff, I mixed up the order in which the links were supposed to be posted, which are to be included with the relevent diffs provided above. Here[178][179] are the correct links that I meant to post. Looking at it now, the AIV cases seems to be more of an mentality of "I don't like your edits, so I'll report you to AIV under the guise of vandalism". Thank you, L3X1, for noting the strangeness in their disregard of the most recent posts to their talk page, in particular the ones regarding questionable edits on their behalf. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 14:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandal redirects to Donald Trump

A blocked user Kingshowman has a new hobby of using socks (the last one was The Grand Puppeteer) to create redirects from offensive items such as Pussy-grabber-in-chief to Donald Trump. The socks repeatedly create at least some of the redirects. Would it be possible to create an edit filter disallowing non-autoconfirmed (possibly not even extended confirmed) users to create redirects to Donald Trump or redirects to redirects to Donald Trump (to avoid subsequent rectification by a bot)?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

My initial thought is that I don't see a problem with creating an edit filter like this (although others may disagree - I welcome their input). I'd just leave it at the non-autoconfirmed level; an edit filter disallowing accounts from doing so unless they're extended confirmed seems unnecessary (again... others might disagree with me). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that the article is already subject to ARBAP2 and blue locked, it's not much of a stretch to allow only extended confirmed editors to create redirects. Blackmane (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Such a filter sounds sensible. DarkKnight2149 13:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have created Special:AbuseFilter/843 which trips any user less than 500 edits creating a redirect to Donald Trump - it's not enabled yet but any edit filter manager who can see a clear consensus here should switch it on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• How is pussy-grabber-in-chief not notable enough for a redirect - it's got 120 google news hits from all sorts of sites as a quote. Reality is, it's out there. Nfitz (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Redirects shouldn't be judged on their notability, but on their functionality. Do you really think that someone putting "pussy-grabber-in-chief" into the searh box does't know that name of the party, and could go to that article directly? Of course they do, and that makes the redirect POV and a BLP violation at that. We're an encyclopedia, if the phrase catches on in a big way and gets a lot of use in hte mainstream press (120 Google News hits is a dop in the bucket), we could have an article on the phrase itself, how it originated, and what it's based on, but a redirect is just making a POINT. (And this is from someone who prefers that the man's name not be mentioned in my household.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree: redirects are not required to be neutral and not required to be tasteful, only functional and not obviously an attack term invented on Wikipedia. "Pussy-grabber-in-chief" is indeed out there in sources of varying reliability ([180] [181] [182]) and it's clear who it refers to, and such a redirect would have been just fine. Except that it's WP:G5 and should be nuked with extreme prejudice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that functionality should be the primary criteria, but I'll stick with the point that anyone who uses it knows exactly where it's going, so it has no de facto functionality at all. But, we can agree to disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

... thus I support enforcement via filter, just to be clear. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'm not convinced that it's either very POV or BLP given his own words. However my mistake is applying Notability - and yes, as a functional re-direct, I see the issue. Gosh, and I hadn't realised we had a Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording article - these are the times we live in I guess ... glad I don't edit much in this topic area. Hmm, and there's a Pussygate redirect to that ... which is at least a convenient short-form for a search Nfitz (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect to everyone, are we really debating whether "pussy grabber in chief" is an acceptable redirect? I have to agree that it serves no function, aside from potentially provoking certain users (side note: did you know that the URL "Loser.com" once redirected to the Wikipedia Trump article? Politics these days...). DarkKnight2149 14:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(EC) There have been both sillier redirects and more serious ones in the past that have had to have discussions. It comes up as a BLP issue occasionally because a plausible and reasonable search term (really the only real criteria for a redirect - will this help people find the correct article) is not necessarily BLP compliant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we are. I never thought I'd see a day when a clear misogynistic bigot and arguable white nationalist was elected in any G8 nation. So it's no wonder that we are now considering such filthy terms. Nfitz (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:R#DELETE #3 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it might be true, but that doesn't mean the redirect should exist anymore than Skin Wearing Momma's Boy should redirect to Ed Gein. I don't think anyone will search for "Pussy grabber in chief" while genuinely looking for the Donald Trump article. DarkKnight2149 16:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Very good idea with the redirect filter, please enable it. Good idea, Ritchie333. Now how about the clever fly-by editors who add Donald Trump as an example or a "See also" to articles like Dunning-Kruger effect or Narcissism? I semi'd Dunning-Kruger effect for that at one point. Could we have a filter for Donald Trump being added to articles where he didn't previously appear, by users with less than 500 edits? Am I joking? No. Bishonen | talk 17:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC).

Okay, based on the simplified policy that a) Bishonen is always right and b) When Bishonen is wrong see a), I have enabled the filter. It's not hard to change it so it will block any edit linking Trump into an article, but let's see if what we've currently got trips up anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, perhaps it's worth mentioning here that a paragraph about Donald Trump was just added to Dunning–Kruger effect by an experienced editor, User:Herostratus. I thought I'd revert it per WP:BLP, but no. It's very well sourced, notably to an article by David Dunning himself.[183] So... well... bad example on my part, perhaps. (Or not?) When Bishonen shoots herself in the foot, see a), by all means. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC).

It's OK User:Bishonen, it's fine. Overall and all-in-all, it's probably (or at least reasonably arguably) a net benefit to block references to Donald Trump being put into articles, at least until discussion and consensus. No rule is perfect and all have side effect. I thought about it, and considered my addition to be a (rather rare) worthwhile exception (although I might be wrong and am standing by to discuss and assess if requested). Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

In view of Dunning's article, I think you're right, Herostratus. But it has just been removed. Talkpage now, of course. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC).

Yes of course, WP:BRD is operative. It'll be some heavy lifting, and we'll find out what's what and hopefully continue to learn and grow. Herostratus (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Redirects are not required to be neutral, but they're also required to be reliably sourced (as in: in everyday use by neutral sources). See also: the kerfuffle over Saint Pancake as a redirect to Rachel Corrie, which had multiple references, but practically all of them were alt-right and virulently anti-Palestinian blogs. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, please tell me you're kidding... Drmies (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support enabling the filter. A preventative approach to this issue seems appropriate given that prescriptive measures do not appear to be working. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

User: 188.68.0.130

User 188.68.0.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making numerous edits by adding, unsourced, same name edits to various organisations detail. This is clearly vandalism, which I have reverted and warned IP - but IP keeps re-inserting. Suggest a block and further warning. Thank you.David J Johnson (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support block: Accoding to the IP's contributions, it states clear that it is repeatedly posting unnecessary content, mostly on the TMX Group article. SportsLair (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

IP appears to be same person as 24.140.238.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), exactly same "edits" with same name wrongly inserted. David J Johnson (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

IP is now using 95.85.80.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the same vandalism. David J Johnson (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

More ip reported: @37.200.67.62:. please protect all stock exchange articles as he use different ip to vandal. Matthew_hk tc 13:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Appears to have gone stale, report at WP:AN/I if vandalism starts again, if it is targeted at specific pages try WP:RPP. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

24.140.238.212 back to live and blocked again. Seem can't range block nor SPI, seem he was shifting internet cafe or some sort. Matthew_hk tc 06:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive and uncooperative editing by User:Drmargi

The following discussion is closed. 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:Drmargi has begun a string of disruptive editing in which he is defying WP:BRD and pushing to make an edit on The Crown that is currently being discussed on its talk page. Drmargi is continuing to edit war, attack other editors by stating they're "causing trouble" when they roll back their edit, unilaterally decided a consensus was reached before the discussion had time to gain more input and erases all warnings and pleas to discuss the problem from their talk page whilst uncvilly calling me a "hypocrite". It's inappropriate, disruptive and creates animosity and a lack of interest in discussing the problem. Rusted AutoParts 17:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: @Winkelvi: @AlexTheWhovian: Rusted AutoParts 17:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This really seems to be a matter for WP:3RR, and barring that, WP:DRN. We haven't really hit the point where ANI is necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

But the user in question is making personal attacks towards others trying to encourage discussing the edit as well as dictating whether the discussion is over. That is very much uncooperative and should surely be reviewed by an admin. Rusted AutoParts 18:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, it just was reviewed by an admin. Their actions are no worse than yours, and I've seen plenty of arguments that were more heated than this one. If you can't agree, then either take it to 3RR or DRN. It hasn't hit the point where ANI is necessary. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Gatorsfan25

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

---

Gatorsfan25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has been warned many times. Keeps adding incorrect information and WP:CRYSTALBALLING on commentator parings for sports articles. The parings will be announced in the summer! ACMEWikiNet (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Though recognizing that sports commentators are often retired athletes who have lost their trim, I hope it hasn't come to the point of literally paring them, at least not on camera. Could get messy. Less radical approaches such as Weight Watchers or Slimfast would be my recommendation. EEng 09:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide WP:DIFFs to show where he's doing this instead of making us do your work for you? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, you were supposed to notify Gatorsfan25 that you've started a discussion concerning him. I have done so. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

[184], [185], [186], [187], [188] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEWikiNet (talk • contribs) 02:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one[189] ACMEWikiNet (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

And more, more, and more. [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195]. Might be a KileBogart sock. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've been looking at some of these edits, and nothing really jumps out at me as a non-admin, but it's not my area. I don't see much attempt to engage the editor, other than with vague warning templates on the talk page. I'm not sure the claims of vandalism on the talk page are accurate - the ones I've look at seem reasonable enough. Perhaps try and have a real discussion with the user on their talk page? Is there a clear example you could give of an edit, and why it's so inappropriate - the ones I've tried to google seem reasonable enough. Don't know about the sock issue - perhaps an experienced admin could opine. Nfitz (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Time to add some more evidence! [196], [197], [198]. Even adding a Steve Harvey version of the Squares? I don't think so! Gonna give him a warning. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@ACMEWikiNet:, you do realize that your warnings are useless, right? Have you tried talking, as more than one user has suggested? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Your first and last diffs, @ACMEWikiNet: don't show anything - I think you meant to put different ones there. Also, I see you listed him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klbogart55. Someone should check that out. Nfitz (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at it and I can't figure out what ACMEWikiNet was trying to say. He just posted some diffs of Gatorsfan25 (and one of his own), with no explanation or comparison. Does ACMEWikiNet think we're telepathic or something? I have to second Nfitz that ACMEWikiNet should try actually talking to the user to explain the issue instead of just throwing templates like they're justification for hounding. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• This whole aspect of the discussion is now moot, as User:Bbb23 has now indefinitely blocked Gatorsfan25 as a sock - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klbogart55 Nfitz (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Springchickensoup disruptive and not engaging in consensus building

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

---

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

A range of problems are still apparent despite >3,500 edits over three months and lots of editors attempting to give feedback. All of this is pretty disruptive.

1. Deletion of article talk page content. Described simply as "edit"[199] [200] which Ghmyrtle picked up. Mass archiving of talk pages then followed at articles which didn't need archiving,[201] thus blanking talk pages; also directing the bot to wrong articles [202], [203]. Mutt Lunker questioned these actions [204] but had an inadequate response,[205] and they didn’t clear up the mess (deleting links to archives rather than restoring talk page material).[206])

2. Repeatedly using uninformative or false edit summaries. Advice given back in December [207] and again in February by MusikAnimal [208] but quick return to summaries like "edit" [209], [210] and "update".[211]

3 Not signing comments on talk pages (not including proper details or including the details of other editors), I raised with them in December [212] but it is still going on [213] [214], Springchickensoup even going back to remove their details [215] and responding with hostility, e.g. Talk:Dunoon. I raised this with this editor[216], so did PamD[217] and then me again.[218]

4. Edit warring rather than BRD. This was happening in December [219] but is still going on.[220]

5. Persistently adding inappropriate or non-existent categories. I raised this in December [221] then January [222] [223] but this has continued [224]

6. Failure to discuss. One instance of Mutt Lunker raising issues led to being taken to ANI in February Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#.28Moved from AN.29 - Inappropriate behaviour. Feedback given by Kendall-K1 was scorned [225] then an odd report filed at UfAA [226]. After offering advice J3Mrs was also rebuked.[227] Springchickensoup’s talk page's history has been blanked of criticisms several times, e.g. 23 Feb 2017[228], 5 Feb 2017[229], and 18 Dec 2016[230].

7. Repeatedly adding navboxes which do not relate to the page on which they are placed, e.g.[231], readded [232] and [233]

8. Unconstructive editing of infoboxes, such as distance of miles to two decimal places, or location by centimetre. Raised by Jellyman [234], PamD[235], Twiceuponatime[236] and others offered advice too[237]. Again the response was hostile and evasive.[238]

Some of this was also raised at WikiProject Scotland Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Enthusiastic.2C_prolific_editor.2C_but... but Springchickensoup hasn't posted there. In December I brought this to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Springchickensoup hoping for some engagement, but the response was unco-operative and included a groundless revenge complaint Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:drchriswilliams_Now_being_confrontational_and_warring.. It feels like we're running out of things to try. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I endorse Drchriswilliams's summary above. I had no dealings with Springchickensoup until earlier today, when I posted[239] on their talk page about problems with categories which I had encountered while working through Special:WantedCategories. Then something twigged with me that there might be more of a history, so I looked at the user talk page's history and saw lots of deleted content. That turned out to be mostly attempts by other editors to raise problems, and usually being dismissed quite rudely.

I noted that Chris had made the most recent attempts to engage, so I posted on Chris's talk[240] that it looked to me that there was some sort of there is some sort of NOTHERE/IDHT/COMPETENCE problem. I followed that up with a brief summary[241] of the issues I had seen. Congrats to Chris for doing the spade-work of putting this together.

I want to believe that this editor means well, but I see only occasional glimmers of an ability to work consensually, and that is a pre-requisite for editing here. There is a very big problem rate with these edits, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND hostility to other editors makes things uncomfortable as well as unfruitful for those who do try to engage.

AFAICS, this adds up to a huge net negative. Springchickensoup has already left behind a lot of messes for others to clean up, and unless some brakes are applied, the cleanup list is only going to grow.

At a minimum, I would suggest some community sanctions, such as: 1RR, requirement to use informative and honest edit summaries, civility warnings, and a requirement to use dispute resolution mechanisms. I wouldn't oppose a block, but am inclined to try a little WP:ROPE first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll note that I also concur with the above assessments. (Apologies if this repeats some of the points made in the post immediately above as they were evidently being drafted at the same time.) This new user is highly active and clearly has much enthusiasm for the project, but only if absolutely on their terms. The bulk of their considerable number of edits are poorly expressed and drafted, do not conform to MOS, are poorly organised, poorly sourced, non-notable or actively - if often unintentionally - highly disruptive. It is understandable that, as a new editor, their level of ability in editing is limited but they have shown utter contempt for any advice or constructive criticism offered to them by numerous other editors. As noted above, they routinely leave misleading edit summaries, have made significant attempts to obscure critical talk page threads and have brought two vexatious referrals here to ANI in regard to criticism of their editing. Their unwillingness to desist from disruptive patterns of editing, coupled with their huge edit rate has tied up much time and effort of other editors in checking, reverting and vainly attempting to provide feedback, advice and criticism. I fear there is still much of their work to be checked, amended, corrected or outrightly reverted or deleted. They may have made some positive contributions but overwhelmingly they are a significant drain on resources, due to their behaviour. This user's enthusiams could be an asset to the project but after several months without showing an iota of willingness to accept the good faith of others, the point has been reached where it has to be indicated that they can not expect to behave like this and be allowed to continue to participate here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been trying to help this editor on Dunoon for some time, tidying up, pointing out that section headings need proper formatting, and that we write in complete sentences, etc. I've now been included in their general vituperative remarks about destructive editors - ie those who apply Wikipedia norms instead of letting this editor do their own thing. It's getting tedious. Their editing is enthusiastic but unskilled, and they don't like getting advice or help. Mileages to London expressed to two decimal points - their response when I said that whole miles was enough precision was "As for being over-precise, again just nonsense, no distance on Wikipedia is precise as the points the measurements are taken from are not fixed point." which seems like WP:IDHT rather than an editor willing to listen to more experienced helpful editors. See also Talk:Dunoon/Archives/2017 1#What.27s_missing for hostile response to a suggestion on how to improve the article. PamD 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Just worked out how I ever got involved: this version of Dunoon, 22 Nov 2016 after Springchickensoup had made a vast number of edits, must have shown up on my notifications as linking to a page I'd created, almost certainly a dab page: it's massively overlinked and looks quite spectacular if you've got dab page links showing in orange as per gadget! PamD 22:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have had little interaction with Springchickensoup but have found him confrontational and bizarre. He brought me to UAA with a charge I didn't understand, something about being dead or being three different people, and did not notify me of the discussion. Nothing came of that. None of my interaction with him amounts to anything deserving any kind of sanction, but together with all the stuff reported by Drchriswilliams, some of which I observed but did not participate in, is troubling. I can't really think of what a reasonable response might be. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I wish I'd seen Springchickensoup sooner, and I'm sure several people have tried to help them, and yes, their stuff is going to need further cleaning up. But their last edit appears to be db-usering their talk page on Feb. 24 after blanking their user page, so it looks as if they are gone. I did my best with one of their articles and then left a friendly message on their talk page, in case they think again, but I suspect they're gone and that this section is therefore moot. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for offering them some friendly advice. I see you also cleaned up some of the problems at Coylet. Springchickensoup had been approached about these problems already- I raised galleries with them and pointed them towards policy [242] weeks before they created that article.

While they were involved in two discussions at ANI in December they added the db-user template to their talk page [243] then added a pointy rationale [244] and was promptly offered an explanation about why it would not be erased.[245] At that point they posted a message suggesting they had left, placing a further scornful message on their user page [246] which replaced one from a fortnight before that was also rejecting community input.[247] Springchickensoup returned 23 days later and was immediately adding problematic categories again [248] and then continued making edits at pace. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I count half-a-dozen editors reporting a similar pattern of unconstructive behaviour. That looks like a consensus on what the problem is, but there has been little discussion of what to do about it. AFAICS, the options are either a block, or some sort of final warning. Any thoughts on that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well said. Some action is clearly required and I'd be happy with either of your suggested options. I don't think we can assume SCS has left the project as they have stormed off in a huff before, only to return again, unreformed. I have seen unco-operative and misguided but prodigious editors come round and become valuable contributors in the past, although this editor seems rather an extreme case. Hopefully a stiff warning or block will get them to wake up and if not we can act accordingly. To note, per these posts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, there may be further problems lying in wait per SCS's camapign of auto-archiving. I'm afraid I haven't had time to fully investigate the problem or to revert the changes which may cause similar problems at other affected articles. We can't have a user perpetuate an editing style which causes so much damage, unintentionally or otherwise, putting a considerable burden on others to clear up the mess. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ideally any course of action should include several aims: reducing incompetent changes being made to articles, stopping Wikipedia’s pages from having changes applied to them covertly, restoring a situation where changes are easy to review, accepting that discussion is used to reach shared understanding, and removing the additional burden that is being placed upon other editors. A final warning may serve to reinforce the gravity of the point we have reached but a large amount of helpful advice has already been offered and rejected- disruption has occurred repeatedly. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned I'd be happy with a block or a warning. With the aim of reaching a conclusion, if the former, how long, bearing in mind we don't know how long this latest huff may be? On that basis, possibly a stiff warning would be better as it will be there to be seen as and when they return. So, if a warning, how do we frame it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest a warning which says that: 1) they have been repeatedly in engaged in disruptive editing in the ways set out in this discussion[permalink]; 2) any further disruption may lead to a block without further warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd go for that. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I support that course of action too. It sounds quite reasonable. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Contentious editing by User:D.H.110

D.H.110 has engaged in contentious editing over the last month, and when challenged, simply removes the notices and warnings from their talk page. See diff of most recent warning from EvergreenFir, which D.H.110 removed without acknowledgment just as with the previous warnings (1, 2, 3). D.H.110's most recent unsourced edit of the Cisgender page was made after being told by two different editors that the source cited did not match their edit. The "anti-SJW" statement on their user page also calls their neutrality into question. Funcrunch (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, by removing a warning, they are acknowledging it. They can remove warnings from their page without comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but it's also the extent of the warnings over the short history of this account that I'm bringing attention to. Funcrunch (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I was only commenting on the talk page warning issue. That in itself isn't a problem, but the edits I would agree are starting to look WP:NOTHERE-ish. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• What's the problem here? Discuss it on the talk page, that's what they're for. This would be a weak complaint at ANEW, it certainly doesn't belong at ANI. Nor is their blanking of messages any reason for complaint: they are allowed to do that, and even if you find it irritating, they are allowed to do that. It is incumbent on anyone posting to ANI to check first that what they complain of is actually an offence against wiki morality.

Maybe they should be critiqued instead for the dreadful phallocentricity of their username, even if they do present as a 'vixen'? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

As I explained above, my reason for posting to ANI was not just about the talk page blanking and not just about the edits to the Cisgender page. It's the history of contentious editing over the month of this account's existence. Funcrunch (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing WP:NOTHERE, I'm seeing an opposing point-of-view. Some edits are quite neutral. Just as many of us are probably biased in one direction, others may be biased in the other direction. This doesn't mean that their contributions aren't valid - and different viewpoints will ultimately lead to a stronger project - what one person sees as NPOV will differ from another. Presumably even a member of a very right-wing organizaiton has a viewpoint, and is welcome to contribute, as long as they abide by the same rules as the rest of us. The user has only edited cisgender thrice, ever. And what they are trying to add, doesn't seem to be entirely unreasonable to add, if phrased correctly. Instead of just deleting the reference they are trying to add, why not rephrase the text around it more neutrally? For the innocent here, what does DH110 refer to? Nfitz (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Nfitz. de Havilland Sea Vixen. An aircraft. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'm not just talking about the Cisgender page; I wouldn't have brought the user to ANI for only those edits. Contentious editing also happened on Buzzfeed (1, 2) and Black Lives Matter (1, 2) with multiple reverts despite being invited (on the BuzzFeed edit) to discuss on the talk page. The only talk page D.H.110 has edited to date appears to be their own. It's not a matter of having an opposing point of view, it's a matter of proper sourcing and cooperating with other editors. Funcrunch (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those; but not much else. Those were both the month before last. No indication they aren't learning from the edit comments. I think this WP:BITE applies. Doesn't seem to be edit warring. On the surface the edits all seem quasi-reasonable. They aren't doing any damage. Nfitz (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Forgot one more example: Also blanked a sourced section of Gender binary as "unverified", and did not respond to invitation to discuss on talk page. Also, this is the first day of March, and February is a short month, so "the month before last" makes these edits sound longer ago than they were. Regardless, I disagree that "they aren't doing any damage" (obviously, or I wouldn't be posting here). Funcrunch (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it so annoying when people delete a referenced section because they don't agree that the reference cited actually supports the claim?

This is not ANI material. Discuss it at talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The Gender binary is a bit more concerning. But it's the only time they've ever touched the article, and it was January. Their more recent references have been a bit more constructive, and have had references. All the edits I've checked, that gave me any concern on POV were very quickly dealt with on the pages in question. The edit summaries for both their edits and reversions look good. I'm not sure I'd get along particularly well with the editor in question, but I don't see any issues other than POV; I'm a little concerned that reference isn't being added to cisgender in one form or other. Nfitz (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: As I've pointed out, the editor has not shown any willingness to discuss their reverted edits at article talk pages. @Nfitz: If another editor want to re-add that source with what it actually states, rather than twisting it to suit their point of view, they are more than welcome. Funcrunch (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any attempt to engage the editor on the talk pages either. They aren't continuing with the edits, and they seem to be reading and responding to the edit summaries. Honestly, I don't blame them for not wanting to start an argument on the talk pages, if they don't think it would be fruitful - they don't have to engage, if they don't want to edit further. Nfitz (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of the edits are not something that require discussion though. The "slur" stuff might, but blanking or other disruptive edits should be addressed on the user's talk page (and they were). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• The issue I'm seeing is a strong POV without indication that they are learning or changing behavior (e.g., this nonsense). The past month or so has demonstrated an inability to edit constructively on what the user might call "SJW topics". A month and a couple dozen edits should be enough to address the behavior. While I understand concerns about BITE, there's clearly concerning and disruptive behavior here with little to no indication of abatement (also see WP:PACT). Remedies like topic bans might be warranted if this continues, in my opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's a single edit on the page. All they did was remove a single image [249], with the comment "deleting hate speech". It is hate speech ... and I can see some might see it offensive, in many, many ways. I don't see why WP:AGF doesn't apply. They've never tried to remove another image like that, that I can see. Nfitz (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hate speech... maybe see This machine kills fascists. TimothyJosephWood 20:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, difference between an idea killing fascists and people killing ... but I see your point. Okay then, strike hate speech and replace as "might be seen as hate speech". However I don't think that changes my point. Nfitz (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This vandalism seem pointy,^[250] as well as consistently blanking their user talk page, are not good signs. El_C 13:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Didn't see that one ... oddly no talk page warning for that one. No, the talk page blanking isn't a good sign, but it's allowed. Nfitz (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

EvergreenFir did post a talk page warning about that vandalism (alongside two other diffs). Funcrunch (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so he did. I must have missed the last diff. We've discussed the first two. I don't think the first was pointy or disruptive at all - there'd been a discussion about adding a reference to this in the talk page, and he went and found a decent reference - all it needed was a bit more editing - I still think the article suffers from not having it. The second is that image, which he only tried to delete once with an explanatory message; I can see why someone might think that kind of obscene vulgar image shouldn't be here (it should, but I can see why one might). I think it's clear that his POV might differ from others (and there's nothing wrong with that), however he doesn't seem to be trying to edit the project to move away from a neutral POV. That third edit is troubling - but not worthy of a ban. And I don't see any offending edits since the final warning (which seemed to me to be overly harsh given the first two examples. Nfitz (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• The user identifies as "anti-sjw", which immediately invokes the GamerGate case. Their edits to aircraft articles are largely unproblematic (form the perspective of someone who has sat on top of the actual aircraft pictured on their user page) but most of the edits to anything related to gender politics are problematic. Per WP:ARBGG I think we are into final warning before topic ban territory; I placed a DS notice and warning [251]. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that the users edits appeared to be progressively improving. And what finally brought them here was added in accordance with the discussion at Talk:Cisgender#PUSH BACK/REJECTION AGAINST TERM, was well referenced [252], was reworded in a following edit. After the ANI notice they appeared to discuss constructively on the talk page. It had all the appearances of being a good-faith constructive attempt to improve the article in accordance with previous discussion by others on the Talk page. The warning looks a little WP:BITE to me.Nfitz (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• As I explained on the Cisgender talk page (after thanking the editor for participating there), the subsequent edit was not reworded to conform to what was actually said in the source. I do not believe this editor is acting in good faith with respect to social justice related articles. Funcrunch (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• It was reworded though. He added the word 'some' which I think one could consider as an attempt to reword it to remove POV. I'm not saying it's a great edit, I just don't see why WP:AGF doesn't apply, and someone simply improve it a bit. To tell the truth, I thought saying that it wasn't reworded was pointy - as it clearly was. And I don't see trying to add the reference and text was pointy, given it was in accordance with the over 3-month discussion on the talk page. Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Adding the word "some" did not make the edit conform any closer to the source. The source said that some gay men and lesbians see cisgender as a slur, the editor wrote that some LGBT people have used "cisgender" as a slur. Not the same thing at all, with or without the word "some". But I'd prefer not to dwell further on just the Cisgender edits on this page. Funcrunch (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Guy: Note that the editor removed your warning (yes, I know this is allowed) and right afterward added "anti-fascist" to their user page. Funcrunch (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• So is anything going to happen D.H.110 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

IP editor 82.7.125.216 / 81.104.12.193 edit warring

The following editor who goes by the following IPs: Special:Contributions/81.104.12.193 and Special:Contributions/82.7.125.216 is engaging in a protracted edit-war on the Lisburn and Hillsborough, County Down articles. Their edits violates the long-standing manual of style for Ireland articles provided at WP:IMOS.

The original editor to revert them, @Daithidebarra:, tried to engage with them on the talk pages here and here to which the IP ignored. Daithidebarra also left the IP several talk back notifications at User_talk:81.104.12.193 so the IP knew of the discussions.

I also detailed precisely the manual of style in use and how the IPs edit-summary arguments held no weight at Talk:Hillsborough, County Down, to which the IP has obviously ignored.

The IP had been given a warning and final warning at User_talk:81.104.12.193 back on the 17th to which they have also ignored.

Mabuska ^(talk) 22:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• one edit in two different articles in 2 weeks is edit warring? I'm more concerned that you referred to this edit [253] as vandalism in a warning on the users talk page[254]. It's a difference of opinion, sure. But vandalism? Looking at Hillsborough, County Down, editors refer to this name as "a fact". However no reference or source is supplied. The link to the 1661 name is dead. Instead of going back and forth over the name, why not just add a reference to it? I assume that's easy enough to find, given that ga:Cromghlinn (Contae an Dúin) exists. That should end the discussion, unless I'm missing something. Nfitz (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I assume you never bothered to look at the discussion on the Hillsborough talk page? Also edit-warring is not confined to time scale, and the fact remains they are ignoring discussion, warnings, and the facts which been explicitly spelled out to them. But yeah okay sure let's just keep reverting their vandalism over and over again and it is vandalism when they have been shown to be in wrong, ignoring discussion and warned several times yet persist regardless. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I also assume you never bothered to actually check both articles edit-histories. 1 in 2 weeks? More like 4. Sorry I am using a tab and can't easily copy and paste links into this discussion without screwing everything up. Also the edit you highlight was the IPs third reimposition of their edit despite the attempts at discussion by Daithidebara, so yeah it can be classified as vandalism. Also let's see... 5 goes at Hillsborough from 21st Jan to 28th Feb, and 5 times at Lisburn from 2nd Feb to 28th Feb. Looks like edit-warring to me. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

As I point out on the talk page for Hillsborough, County Down there are two seperate issues, whether or not there is a Irish Language name for the place (and if so - I suppose- what it is) which may or may not be disputable, and the conduct of an IP Editor using two seperate IPs in deleting references to the Irish Language name without discussion. Their continued use of two ip addresses, in preference to registering, further muddies the water, as it is now important to read BOTH talk pages. I have before this placed three seperate formal requests for discussion on the talk page for the most used IP, as well as informal requests. In fact in their latest edit they give as their reason:

"No need to discuss as it is a fact not an opinion , adding a defunct translation to a long defunct name is idiotic"

This, it seems reasonable to infer, makes it plain that they do understand that they have been requested to discuss before further editing, but are refusing to do so, and have gone on to act without discussion. In that case, for them to be allowed to continue without sanction would seem to me to be odd. My thanks to Mabushka for bringing it here. Daithidebarra (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It will take me some time (that I don't have right now) to fully comprehend the long (perhaps overly) long explanation on the talk page. Is there not a simple reference to the Irish place name, like there is for Lisburn? It doesn't help that reference 2 in the article is a dead link. Nfitz (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I read the talk page. And I see a reference in it to the place name. Why not just add that to the article (like has been done for Lisburn) and fix that dead link. That should change the IP edits from someone removing unsourced material to something more serious. Is it edit warring? Maybe - the edit comments seem half decent though. Hard to block someone for 24 hours, if they don't log in for a few days ... Nfitz (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You could simply block IP editing of the articles in question for a set period of time, say a month or so. Would have two effects: they stop; they register and carry on. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

A month would be harsh for a first offence, for infrequent edits like this. They've only had 2 edits total in the last 2 weeks. Why not just reference the contentious unsourced material, and fix the broken link? Perhaps someone else here has a different opinion?Nfitz (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

With respect, Nfitz an inadequate response on your part which largely misses the point. I thought I had explained the matter in my posting above. TWO DISTINCT ISSUES, what the Irish Language name for Hillsborough ought to be is the first issue. I believe I have now resolved this by providing a reference link to the Irish language name in Article Hillsborough, Co. Down, copying the equivilant reference used in the Article Lisburn. So the material is now sourced. This does at least improve the article. It fulfills your request above: "Why not just add that to the article (like has been done for Lisburn) and fix that dead link. That should change the IP edits from someone removing unsourced material to something more serious." BUT NOTE that as in the case of Lisburn the information already fully sourced in that way, the ip editor is already engaging in removing sourced material. This leads me on to the second issue, the conduct of the ip editor. I have taken the trouble to carefully follow procedure on this, and made many attempts to engage them in discussion, including the placing of no less than three formal requests to discuss on their main talk page, using the recommended template and using the recommended intervals of time. In their latest edit they explicitly refuse to engage in discussion. If there is to be no sanction whatever for failing to respond to a request for discussion what is the point of that process? Is it simply a waste of time? While I am at it you say " the edit comments seem half decent though. " Have you really read them? They include, in successive edits, accusing editors who disagree with him as having an "ulterior motive" being "idiots" and finally describing the Irish Language as "defunct". This last, especially in view of certain guarentees relating to the status of the Irish language contained in the Good Friday agreement would be experienced by a certain section of the Northern Ireland population as deeply offensive and an attack on their identity. This is essentially troll like behaviour, but it seems nothing to be done. Really? I am asking for a sanction to be applied. if you are unwilling to do so, please respond to me and explain why the conduct I have listed here requires no sanction. Daithidebarra (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2017

Yes I did see those. Successive edits? The ulterior motive one was on Feb 2 - and is a bit pointy. Defunct is a week later, and I took as meaning regionally defunct - but I'm no expert on how widely Irish is used in that part of County Down. The third is several edits later on Feb 28, and isn't "idiots" but "idiotic". Again pointy, but you are overstating a bit by saying he called people "idiot"s.

On the other hand, there are discretionary sanctions related to WP:TROUBLES - although I don't think they've been utilized for a while. I think it's heavy handed - but perhaps someone with history here needs to look. User:BrownHairedGirl has been involved in that topic area - what do you think? Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nfitz: see WP:TROUBLES, which seems clear enough that sanctions are still applicable. The logging was centralised, so the sanctions log on that page is not up-to-date. However, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#The_Troubles, shows that these sanctions were applied several times in 2016. So I conclude that they are very much alive.
As to their use in this case, it does seem to me to be absolutely the sort of issue where they can be helpful. However, I haven't analysed the IP's conduct closely enough to form a view on whether they should be used here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirlThanks, I was looking at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#List of editors placed on notice.

Someone else needs to look at this. I don't think it's worth it yet, and simply referencing the contentious issue in the article should solve. But I think another opinion is needed. Nfitz (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I think a different administrator should take a look at this issue. Also I said block IP editing of the articles for a month not the actual IPs. You know semi-protection? The statement afterwards stating it'd maybe make them signup should have made that clear. I also have to agree with Daithidebarra's comment above. Personally the incompetence shown here only further encourages disruptive editing, any wonder quite a few long time editors in the Ireland WikiProject have disappeared completely over the past few years. Sheer incompetence rules once more. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems that this is now archived without any resolution, or indeed action. I do not think this is appropriate. How can this matter be escalated further? How do we get a "someone else" to look at this?

Daithidebarra (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

An problematic IP

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

---

Can you guys take a look at this IP's edit history, because this IP had been blocked twice for disruptive editing. Because this editor or editors keep linking phrases that don't need to linked, edits like this to music related articles, I know that most of the IP's edits are not considered as vandalism but my problem is when this IP edit a article, it brings no new content at all. Just go to articles like Hurricane Chris (rapper), I think this editor is using this article as a sandbox.

I have reported this IP to other administrators about this issue recently to Laser brain and Oshwah, but I didn't get a quick response. This IP just recently made these edits [255] [256] at the At. Long. Last. ASAP article. Look, I hate being the boy who cried wolf here, but my problem is the IP has made too many grammar mistakes, and most of the changes essentially only contributed to corrupting the language and added nothing to the content. I don't understand what the user was trying to achieve. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheAmazingPeanuts. I was busy and missed your message on my talk page when you left it. Sorry about that, man :-/. I'll look into this and get back to you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

So I do see what you're talking about, but what I don't see are recent attempts to discuss the issue directly with the user. The last warning was left on February 20th. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I know the last warning was left on February 20th and I should have left a very recent warning to the talk page, but the reason I didn't leave a warning because most of the edits to other articles recently didn't seem disruptive to me, so I didn't bother, but realized now, I should have. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts - It's all good, dude. This is why these noticeboards exist - to make sure we're doing the right thing :-). If attempting to warn or help educate the user doesn't go anywhere, and if the edits in concern continue -- let me know and we'll go from there. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: The IP has blocked by Materialscientist for adding unsourced material. Thanks anyway for the advice, I let you know if this user might use another IP address because this user has a history of using multiple accounts. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! And yeah, please do! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Help Wanted: Experienced editor needed to mentor a new editor

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

---

Good morning. I am in need of an experienced editor (you don't need to be an admin) who is willing to mentor a new editor. The editor in question has gotten into a bit of trouble and is currently blocked. However they have expressed what sounds like sincere regret and a desire to become a constructive member of the community. Alas there are WP:CIR issues here and a condition for unblocking is that they agree to mentoring. Interested editors can contact me on my talk page for details.

This post will be deleted as soon as a mentor has been found. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Left a message on your talk page. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem - I'll be happy to help with mentoring! I see that White Arabian Filly has also elected to help (awesome!); if my help is needed as well, please do not hesitate to reach out to me and let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah thanks for the offer. Feel free to drop a line on the users talk page. If we have a team of editors they can fall back on, then the odds of success are that much better. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and will do, Ad Orientem. Happy Friday -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User making problematic edits on many pages from many rapidly changing IPs

The following discussion is closed. 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 appears to be a fairly new user who has begun heavily contributing to updating men's and women's college basketball standings templates, but they are repeatedly using future "as of" dates rather than the most recent game result or editing date. This behavior has caused confusion and inconsistency across templates, upended years of standard usage by numerous other editors, and is in conflict with the documentation for Template:CBB Standings End ("date: Date that the template was most recently updated.")

I and several other editors have been trying to revert these nonstandard changes to proper "as of" dates as we see them, but the user in question is rather prolific. More importantly, the user is unregistered and using dynamic IPs that change every few hours, making it difficult to track all of their edits and engage in discussion with them. A number of messages have been left on the talk pages for the IPs, but they have gone unanswered. Any advice on what can be done to rein in or at least elicit a response from the user to facilitate a discussion about their behavior would be appreciated.

Partial list of IPs apparently all used by the same editor:

• 2602:306:cc21:9950:c1a9:c9cf:c5d7:4e63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff
• 2602:306:cc21:9950:a5a7:e6c1:9fc8:5d6c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff
• 2602:306:cc21:9950:6187:e9e0:66ca:b066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff
• 2600:1:d306:6d8d:58b3:73a6:8a77:e789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff
• 2602:306:cc21:9950:c5bd:6578:7562:f66a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff
• 2602:306:cc21:9950:449:7dd4:9e43:4a01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff

Thanks! WildCowboy (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @WildCowboy: Except for the fourth, all of these belong to the same AT&T /64 subnet and are almost certainly the same person. That they are changing so often within that range is no surprise due to the way IPv6 addresses are assigned.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Well, the template pretty clearly states this should be the date it was last updated, not some future date. Since the disruption is ongoing as we discuss this, I'll range block 2602:306:cc21:9950::/64 for 24 hours. I don't know anything about how Wikipedia covers sports, so I'm a little reluctant to start off with a longer block. Another thing I noticed is that User talk:2602:306:CC21:9950:C5BD:6578:7562:F66A is tagged as a sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk · contribs), which struck me as a possibility when scanning through the templates' history. However, he doesn't seem to set the date parameter to the future (example template edit). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• In the long-term, is semi-protection an option, if it doesn't stop? I'm not sure how many templates are involved. Nfitz (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• As a frequent editor of college basketball pages and standings templates, this user has been making disruptive edits for a long time, and has been given many chances to start cooperating with all the rules he has been violating.--Zachlp (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for the input everyone. Semi-protection would seem to be a natural step, but this affects dozens of templates, so it's rather unwieldy to request and implement. Glad to hear others have been frustrated by this user's behavior. @Zachlp: Why do you suspect that IP is a sockpuppet? Dereks1x (talk · contribs) was banned ten years ago and I didn't see anything linking him to that IP in a quick scan of that case and recent activity on the IP. WildCowboy (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• @WildCowboy: I would say that the IP users mentioned, and most (if not all) others in the suspected sockpuppet list are certainly tied to Lewisthejayhawk (talk · contribs), who, before I was involved with this case, was a suspected sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk · contribs). It was my understanding that there was also a clearer connection between Lewisthejayhawk and Dereks1x, leading to all of the users/IPs being grouped together under Dereks1x.--Zachlp (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• NeilN has blocked the range for 24 hours. This group of IPs geolocates to a different part of the USA from the group most recently reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dereks1x fwiw. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• It seems he/she isn't done. They have been reverted again at Template:2016–17 Big 12 men's basketball standings for setting the date to today, even though there is a game to be played today. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yep, still around and still using future dates: 2602:306:cc21:9950:bc17:dee1:7d88:2fc7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff. WildCowboy (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Alright, I did a one week range block this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:ThanhPeters

The following discussion is closed. 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 (@ThanhPeters:) keep on on not responding English warning (he did reply once in his talk page for Chinese/English bilingual welcome message but seem a Vietnamese). His most recent disruptive edits was keep uploading the same image to English wikipedia (currently the third time) after his attempt to upload to wikicommoan was failed. He clearly not the copyright owner nor showing the "fair use" of the image, but he keep removing maintenance tag in wikipedia and common, and/or making false claim on copyright information. Matthew_hk tc 06:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The user is already blocked on Commons for three months for uploading non-free content. [:File:Wang Ziwen 中国电视剧品质盛典.jpeg] was already deleted once by User:Fastily for violating WP:NFCCP #1 and the image is all over the internet. I've tagged the image for deletion.

See relevant SPI here and edit warring by now blocked WP:DUCK here.

Seems fairly clear that the user is either unable or unwilling to communicate with others, although they do know how to use their talk page. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indef with instructions on how to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Declined the unblock, which read (in full) something rule in wiki so hard i don't get this yet. Anyway, I've dealt with the user problematic editing before and I don't have high hope that a new unblock message will be convincing. English-language skills seem just too limited. El_C 15:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I don't see the decline on this talk page. His written English might be poor in grammar, but it seems comprehensible enough to me. Nfitz (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Considering they're on their third block on Commons for the same conduct, and have had more than a dozen images deleted there for the same reason, and considering that templates on Commons are multilingual and display in whatever language you have selected, this seems likely to be a CIR issue that reaches beyond the obvious language barrier, unless for some reason they had their Commons account set to English. TimothyJosephWood 15:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't-see-what? I've just dealt with him before, so the basis of that experience leads me to believe he is unlikely to articulate a convincing unblock request. El_C 15:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

They can't formulate a proper unblock request and keep on removing the decline. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. he'd removed your decline, and somehow I missed seeing it in your edit history. Someone has restored it - I should have looked at his talk page history first. Sorry Nfitz (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. Understandable confusion. El_C 16:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Repeated copyvio images

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

---

LuckyAries (talk · contribs · count)

User was blocked last month for repeated copyright violations and has continued to upload copyvio images. No communication whatsoever from them on their talk page regarding this. It doesn't look like they are going to stop. Requesting a block. --Majora (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed and uploads nuked, though I left the cover art for R U Ready? (album) since that had the proper tags on it and clearly falls under the remit of the fair-use image guidelines. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I tagged that for a size reduction. You can probably thank the upload wizard for their other uploads. The wizard works rather well for fair use images. Other things, not so much. --Majora (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Prashant407

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

---

Prashant407 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently made this edit which was a straight-forward BLP violation. I proceeded to warn but realised this account has been since 2013 and all it's edits on BLPs have been disruptive, worse than this, with just a single warning besides mine. Two edits by contained abuse in Hindi which I've emailed for oversight. Made just 14 edits, this year, just added the abuse in another page; in in 2016, added another BLP vio in addition to the abuse; in 2015, blatant attacks on two other BLPs. Both cases of abuse were reverted but one of them, horribly enough, remained live for quite a long time till it was found. Prior to this, it gets weird, rather harmless edits to insurance-related pages and one BLP (that time, slanted towards praising the subject). This looks like a new editor gone bad, something needs to be done. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The one item you cite looks like editorializing, not a BLP issue as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Last one that looks somewhat objectionable, discussing castes, was in 2015. Nothing seemed twotoo extreme - though if I missed it, please diff. I don't think this is an ANI case. Talk pages and edit summaries. Nfitz (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, one extreme would be enough, don't you think? EEng 07:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to send the ANI notice, my bad. My first diff has stuff against reporters like Barkha Dutt and Rajdeep Sardesai--both frequent targets, look at their protection log for instance.

The next two diffs, not linked to intentionally, at 7 Feb 2017 and 25 May 2016 contain Hindi abuse words concerning ones mother, to put it bluntly; my oversight report hasn't been responded to as of now.

Then the other two less serious BLP vios at Raghu Ram and Chetan Bhagat are much older (2015). Yea, it's true, while some of these edits are serious, they are pretty much stale. Maybe, this warrants action the next time this account makes such an edit but that would be less likely, given that it edits persistently but on a yearly basis or some sort of final warning? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The diff you provide - well it has a source. The editor seems to twist it a bit - but the talk page warning should suffice. The Feb 7, 2017 - uh, okay, I found the translation. Yeah, that's not good. And the May 25, 2016 - ah, similar meaning (though perhaps the individual in question in the article deserves it with thousands of people killed). But obviously not acceptable - though not BLP given he had died. I've put a more serious vandalism template on their page. I don't see any point blocking at this point in time. As per WP:BLOCK, blocks are preventative not punitive; at that edit frequency, might not even notice a 1-week block! Let's see if the warning gets the message through, given they haven't been warned about anything serious before. I have linked to the article, or else it's going to be difficult for others to see why the action was taken. Nfitz (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ugog Nizdast, thanks for reporting. The BLPs in question seem to be mostly Indian, right? If the user persists after your warning, they can be topic banned from BLPs, or from Indian subjects, whichever makes more sense. I've given them the required discretionary sanction alerts. Please let me know if you should see them continue. Since they edit so sparsely, I feel I'm likely to miss it. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC).

Oh dear, mispinged. Here you go: Ugog Nizdast. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC).

Thanks everyone for looking into this. Uh Bish, can those two edits at 7 Feb 2017 and 25 May 2016 be eligible to be REVDELed? I'm still a bit unfamiliar with oversight and it seems they handle only libel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, Ugog Nizdast. Done. Bishonen | talk 09:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC).

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

UFC 209

The following discussion is closed. 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 we put some added protection on the UFC 209 page? There has been a lot of vandalism. DaveA2424 (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been done as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#UFC_209. Nfitz (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Soft skin

User:Soft skin, who was blocked in 2015 for anti-Semitic reference desk trolling, has in the past used his talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX, and now we are seeing trolling of the refdesks that refer to those discussions. [257][258] (IP already blocked for a week for block evasion: See LTA/Vote X for Change).

Might I suggest revoking Soft skin's talk page access and blanking (and maybe revdeling?) the discussions on his talk page about the protocols of the elders of Zion, Palestinians, etc? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The troll does raise an interesting question, though: Where was TRM accused of being a Holocaust denier? Referring specifically to this:[259] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That's by some margin the least interesting question it raises, Bugs. The user — the account, I mean — had been silent after being indeffed in August 2015, but in February 2016, Anna Frodesiak reanimated them by inviting them to chat about how they're "not too crazy about Jews". I don't think Anna had the best idea there. I'm putting it mildly. Though I'm sure she had good intentions. The entire conversation had been revdel'd, yet left on the page, I presume by mistake. I've blanked the talkpage and revoked tpa. Bishonen | talk 15:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC).

That, I wasn't aware of. And you're right, it was not a good idea to wake the sleeping dog. I would still like to know what TRM was talking about, out of curiosity anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

One of Vote (X)'s habits is making "unverifiable" claims about other editors. Favonian (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You are right, Bishonen and Baseball Bugs. I should have stuck to DENY. I will never again attempt to talk to LTAs. I really am sorry to have made things worse. :( Please accept my apologies. As you know, I do make mistakes, but I always listen to good guidance and learn to handle things better after that. I'm so sorry. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Anna, you go out of your way to help newbies and difficult cases, which is totally admirable. No risk, no gain. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen. I'll always try to help, but that will never again include approaching LTAs. The DENY strategy to LTAs makes sense and I should not have second guessed it by trying to reason with one. Reasoning can only work with the reasonable. LTAs range from unreasonable to, frankly, quite bonkers. Anyhow, thanks for being so forgiving about the whole thing. I never meant to be a fly in the ointment. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Not quite. Old spat, dont worry about it. An Errors discussion where one editor complained that not including IHRM in 'On this day' was tantamount to 'Holocaust denial'. Which they linked to, so there was no weasling out of it by saying they didnt imply that those who didnt support its inclusion were not being labelled as such. Understandably TRM and David Levy were not best pleased about this. Personally I would have just removed the comment as a blatant personal attack, even if it was only by inference. Its ERRORS though, so anything there thats off-topic usually gets punted fairly quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't a long-term blocked troll, it was a regular user who got away with such a grave and despicable insinuation. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Now that I've seen it, yes, you were right to gripe, and more restrained than you had to be. It was a gross and baseless personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I knew this sounded familiar; admins, there's at least one good reading suggestion on that page: you're welcome. The Rambling Man, it is indeed a shame that this person got away with making 17 edits to the RefDesk; certainly number 7 should have been cause enough for an indef block. As an admin, I apologize for us not nipping this in the bud sooner. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Attempt at legal intimidation

IP 174.255.138.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is wanting to refactor past discussions at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television) has posted on my talk page (here) with a demand claiming to be from lawyers. Note: this isn't the first time for various threats claimed to be originating from a lawyer was made related to this article.

I'll leave it to someone uninvolved to address WP:NLT with the IP. In the meantime, perhaps a curtesy archiving may be beneficial to at least move the mention off the primary active talk page? Thoughts? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, should this be reported to legal@wikimedia.org, or should we just direct the IP to contact that address themselves? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Although s/he says "legal request" ("per legal request from SAG-Aftra legal department")—I still consider it falling under no legal threats. I, therefore, issued a block. El_C 07:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This particular topic has attracted this sort of thing for awhile though. It's borderline, but the constant repetition of the word "legal" does sound like an attempt to me to intimidate people away from interfering with the redactions that they're making. So good call User:El_C. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC).

Interesting; I agree that blocking was the right thing to do despite my conflicting thoughts in regard to WP:NLT. Is it a legal threat? Eh no, not in my opinion. Is it legal intimidation? Yes. For sure. I really wish we'd implement a policy or guideline regarding legal intimidation like this. I genuinely feel that it has no place here, and that dealing with it has always danced around WP:NLT with debate as to whether it's a threat of legal action or if it isn't. I support El_C's decision to block the IP; it was the right call. I'm also quite suspicious in regards to sock puppetry (like many others here as well)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Their tone is quacking like a duck to me - X201 (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted perhaps? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I suspect this is Garnerted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 14:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: I setup the page to auto-archive old talk threads; hopefully that'll be sufficient to prevent future disruption. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks by user: 173.230.139.45

The following discussion is closed. 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 involved: Special:Contributions/173.230.139.45

• Personal attack: diff
• Socking accusations:

• diff
• diff.

K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Where's the personal attack? El_C 19:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

coffman go on removal spree

The two IP above is coffman.

He does this and hide behind ip addresses from time to time. He confessed using IP address...

Does this clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I realize you might have taken offense, and that it may well be an unwarranted accusation, but I'm not sure it actually rises to a personal attack. El_C 19:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Concur. The first diff is not a personal attack. Sock puppetry accusations without evidence can be offensive. I'll explain that to the IP if they haven't approached yet. Tiderolls 19:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"Dis"-concur with both for differing reasons. Accusations without evidence are personal attacks. The first diff is not a PA at all. The second is quite telling to me that this is not a new editor. The IP editor has randomly shown up to a normal discussion to throw an attack against coffman on a page they have never edited before nor were invited to. I don't see a context for it at all. That said, if there's something block worthy it's a combination of the three edits to their talk page calling people bastards; one edit in a four chain revert war. and their article edits being pure vandalism; here, here and here Mr rnddude (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum, due to this being an IP I am unable to tell whether the owner of the IP has changed over the past month. It is likely that they have, but, both owners of the IP have similarly unwanted attitudes and zero constructive contributions between them. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The user is continuing with their accusations of socking: diff. I believe that in this case WP:CIR also applies as the IP's alleged confession / evidence is a simple lack of reading comprehension (see diff). K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Starting Edit War without reaching consensus

The following discussion is closed. 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:Dennis Bratland starts reverting and edit war on United States presidential election in Nevada, 2016, while the result of the discussion doesn't favor him. Ali 05:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ali Zifan, this is the wrong venue to report edit-warring or content disputes. For the edit-warring issue, WP:ANEW is the correct venue, but you must first warn the editor about edit-warring on their talk page (for instance, with one of the relevant templates from WP:WARN) and give them a chance to desist before you report them. For the content dispute issue, you'll need to employ some sort of dispute resolution. For instance, you can open a WP:RFC. Or investigate the other official forms of Dispute Resolution. — Softlavender (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this has not reached the point of needing ANI discussion. An RFC would suffice. bd2412 T 22:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Slow-burn heraldry edit war

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

---

• L'honorable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DrKay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Albert, Prince Consort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've had user L'honorable's talk page watchlisted since participating in an unblock request a month or so ago, as the block was for sockpuppetry and I happened to come across it as an SPI clerk; I later supported the request. The user's return has been tumultuous, having been reblocked and then unblocked again as well as being blocked on Commons for behaviour which may be related, and they've recently become involved in a content dispute at Albert, Prince Consort which also involves administrator DrKay. DrKay appears to have history with L'honorable, which I know nothing about, but over this weekend DrKay has taken to forumshopping various admin boards to get L'honorable re-blocked. They posted at ANEW earlier, which is a good thing for an involved administrator to do, but they appear to have taken it poorly when that was "closed as no violation". The thread was closed at 13:52; at 13:54 DrKay filed an SPI clearly rehashing the case which led to L'honorable's original block. 20 minutes later they reverted with a clearly pointy edit summary at Albert, Prince Consort ("since this is not edit-warring per {link} I shall repair all the damage"). In all this there has been exactly zero discussion on the article's talk page, which was last edited by a human in 2014, although L'honorable has attempted to discuss the content dispute on DrKay's talk page (which DrKay today ordered him not to do again) and by pinging users to his own talk page.

I closed the new SPI and tried to suggest to DrKay that some discussion on the talk page would be a good next step, which earned me a "don't speak down to me". So I'm leaving it here for someone else to take a look at:

1. does Albert, Prince Consort need full protection due to the edit dispute?
2. does my support of L'honorable's past unblock make me involved w/r/t Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mabelina? (in which case another clerk should review the case)

Thanks in advance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• 1. No. This has already been determined at the AN3 board.
• 2. No. My comment at 20:38 UTC is in response to your comments about me not in response to the determination of the case. DrKay (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • DrKay, you misunderstand INVOLVED. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to note l'honorable's recent edits to List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Even though DrKay and I remarked on the talkpage that we can't take it upon ourselves to attribute a coat of arms to a particular person—in this case David Cameron—l'honorable afterwards launched into the article doing just that. His reply on the talkpage makes it seem that his edits were undertaken in spite [260]. Back in 2015 Mabelina edit-warred specifically over this Cameron-heraldry-original-research-stuff in the David Cameron article, and was blocked several times—I remember this because for a while it seemed like I was the only person who was concerned about the false heraldry and false genealogy that he kept inserting in it and other articles (for example see Talk:David_Cameron/Archive_5#Problems and this 2-week block for edit-warring over this exact thing). From my standpoint, Mabelina was a nightmare concerning the Cameron stuff. It was so frustrating dealing with someone who would not listen; who refused to comprehend the concepts of original research and synthesis; and who constantly edit-warred to 'win'. So now, as a result of l'honorable's recent edits, and from reading through the carnage on his talkpage, it's dawned on me that Mabelina is back under a new name. I've since learned that l'honorable was caught socking and later forgiven, and that his lame excuse of a shared account with an 'ex wife' was apparently accepted. What the hell? Here's a comment User:RHaworth left on l'honorable's talkpage in December when the prospect of unblocking l'honorable was hashed-out: "Highly sceptical unblock proposal ... I confidently predict that we will soon see a return to the disruptive activities which got Mabelina blocked so many times"[261]. RHaworth was right. Enough is enough.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Way back in May 2016—days after l'honorable was outed for socking whilst in the midst of warring over his heraldic-original-research in Lawrence Booth—RHaworth left the following comment on l'honorable's talkpage: "Sadly my betting is that if you stick to the standard offer and we unblock you in six months time, then within your first half dozen edits you will resume the behaviour which has got you blocked a dozen times so far" [262]. The history of the Lawrence Booth article spells it out: for years User:Ealdgyth seems to have struggled with Mabelina's original research in this single article; and when Mabelina was blocked for good at the beginning of 2016, l'honorable showed up that spring and renewed the struggle. His warring in that particular article reached a crescendo in May 2016 that only ceased when he was outed and blocked for socking. But l'honorable was allowed to come back. And now he's drifting back into some of his old haunts—like List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom—picking up where he left off, pulling the same stunts. Anyway, I was stunned to see that RHaworth called it twice. I sympathise with DrKay and anyone who has to deal with this guy.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Now, verbosity is in itself not a blockable offense, but disruptive editing is. That's the argument that should be made here. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

How about bad-faith grandstanding solely to provoke DrKay and the banner? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

And while we're at it, dragging commons drama over to here YET AGAIN??? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked over some of l'honorable's recent edit-warring activities and have re-blocked them indefinitely, reinstating the original indef-block as imposed on User:Mabelina for "exhausting the community's patience" in January 2016. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that action. Regarding the connection to Mabelina, l'honorable's accepted explanation is that he shared the account with his (ex-)wife, so there shouldn't be any surprise that some of Mabelina's history carries over into l'honorable's behaviour, and l'honorable made no effort to hide that connection. I argue that this situation is not sockpuppetry, though it is definitely resuming disruptive behaviour which led to a prior block, and this block ought to stick. There now remains the issue that Albert, Prince Consort, currently a featured article, has been through a protracted edit war and could use some neutral parties to review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry was blatant: he even forgot - as most sock users do - who he was signing off - Mabeline's trademark "M" here and again "M", this time as L'honorable, here. Why anyone would want to sign their apparently acrimoniously divorced spouse's monogram instead of their own is beyond me! Keri (t · c) 14:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That he was using both accounts is obvious; he admitted it. Sockpuppetry requires that he did so deceptively to evade a block, which he did in May 2016 and was blocked. Some time later he asked the community to allow him to edit as l'honorable, which we did, and subsequent to that unblock no sockpuppetry has occurred. But we're arguing semantics anyway, he's blocked as l'honorable for continuing the same behaviour that got him blocked as Mabelina, and it's unlikely either account will be unblocked again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

To my opinion, DrKay also should be rewarded a block of some kind. The SPI was the point that I noticed that DrKay went from being in conflict to harassing L'honorable. On my critical question on the talkpage came a rather harsh e-mail-reply, stating that my "with al due respect" was in fact just showing disrespect. At that time I realized that DrKay was in full attack mode, what is shown in the actual SPI too. The Banner talk 10:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

To provide context and prevent misunderstanding of the term "harsh", you have my permission to publish the full content of the email (minus address and any identifying headers). DrKay (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(Reverted). 79.78.35.136 (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What happens at Commons, stays at Commons. It's fairly obvious that you haven't been following the multiple car wrecks of the Mabelina/L'honorable saga here at en:Wikipedia. Keri (t · c) 13:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This IP has only 12 edits: 2 of them are to my talk page and 6 of them are at this board. 8 of them coincide with periods that either the Mabelina or L'honorable account was blocked. It does not take a genius to figure out who it is. DrKay (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The full 13 words of your mail will not add anything serious to this case, DrKay. The Banner talk 15:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Now the IPs have joined in and the disruption and sockpuppetry is blatantly obvious, this entire thread should be shut down. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The troll behind the disruption in this thread is not related. Unless you mean to suggest that Mabelina/L'honorable is the known troll, which I personally doubt. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Motion to close - if it's alright with The Banner and everyone else, I suggest chalking this up to an editor's frustrated response to our sometimes slow pace in dealing with a disruptive user. Admins are not immune to emotion, and the user is now dealt with and there's been no abuse of tools or anything here, so why don't we all just move on? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No objection, as I have the idea that the message to DrKay is coming across. The Banner talk 19:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:EpiriotDevolli

The following discussion is closed. 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 looks very much like a legal threat. I am wholly uninvolved being neither Greek nor Albanian, but I guess a suitable heavy request to desist from such behaviour might be in order.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

SPA blocked indefinitely for saying "stop messing with our inside work because you can be sued for it." El_C 09:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible Interwiki Tongo bot

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

---

2001:8003:2467:1E00:58EE:1BFC:E73:DE77 (talk · contribs) looks like they might be a bot - the IP is doing nothing but adding (deprecated) Tongo interwiki links to what seem like an entirely arbitrary sequence of articles, at a fairly steady rate of one per minute. They've ignored a direct question on their talk page asking if they are a bot. --McGeddon (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. for 31 hours to prevent further addition of such links for now. Hopefully by then the IP will start answering why they are making so many automated edits. Regards SoWhy 10:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked this user before as 2001:8003:2467:1E00::/64 for disruption and edit warring. The above IP is dynamic and other IPs in the same range were doing the same adding of interwiki links. I blocked the range again, this time for 1 month. In general for IPv6 a single user controls all the IPs in a /64 range. NrDg 15:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Re: SANCAN112

I'd like to propose that the current block of two weeks for this user be upgraded to indefinite under the basis that they are clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. They've now been blocked twice for unsourced additions and uncivilized behavior/personal attacks, and it's clear to me that they will not change their ways. Thank you in advance for any feedback. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Many, if not most, of their edits seem to be constructive contributions unless I'm missing something. Certainly a couple of bad days there though. First block was 2 days. Second was 2 weeks. Presumably if it happens again, it will be longer, or indefinite. Nfitz (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• They don't have a long history, which makes the two blocks worrisome. However, rope probably applies here. --Tarage (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Looking at the recent behaviour - it's possible that the account may have been compromised. Twitbookspacetube 07:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - They don't have a long edit history. Let the block expire. If they continue to make disruptive edits after that, they will eventually find themselves indeffed and will have no one to blame but themselves. In the meantime, we should keep an eye on them. DarkKnight2149 19:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Attempted doxing by Special:Contributions/144.13.183.111

Users being reported:

• Special:Contributions/144.13.183.111
• Special:Contributions/GELongstreet

Please see

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3

For a similar prior case, please see Attempted doxing by User:HicManebimusOptime in the ANI archives.

K.e.coffman (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the last ANI case, but looking at those diffs, it looks like the user was posting those links as they actually pertain to the Wikipedia article discussion. I don't think this is necessarily an obvious deliberate doxing, even if it isn't necessarily right (though I have no experience with this editor). The Reddit page does discuss Wikipedia. DarkKnight2149 16:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

How is it doxxing when anyone can visit the page and see you admit it? http://i.imgur.com/gcWwCwi.png 144.13.183.111 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regardless of your intentions, unless they have posted this information on Wikipedia, you need to stop with these links. Read WP:OUTING. DarkKnight2149 16:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose, what then about the comments he makes encouraging other redditors to make accounts then label anything they don't like as dubious, so I assume it gets removed? That sounds sort of like raiding/brigading, and I was wondering then who or where should I post that to? 144.13.183.111 (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

As one of the reported users I´m putting those edits the reporter linked above in words: A link was left on my talkpage, I said it should be posted not there but the respective discussion where it was inserted (the link itself by me as it was forgotten to be linked). Then I tagged the reporter and another user whose talk page was linked in the respective reddit page. I didn´t make any definite claims that the respecive reddit user is the same person and therefore don´t think that, as far as I am concerned, I was involved in any doxing. Also, unlike the said-to-be similar case, my account is in no way made to take out grudges which my contribution history clearly shows. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: If Wikipedia is discussed on those Reddit posts, then that adds a bit of ambiguity to the situation. I think WP:POSTEMAIL can be applied here. DarkKnight2149 17:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If I read it correctly WP:POSTEMAIL refers to private communication that accordingly lapsed into the public. But if I´m not mistaken reddit is not private but instead has public access altogether. Which, even considering the hinted admission of being the same person, would mean that still no private information had been posted over here but just public material that by its content is directly related to wikipedia and the discussion. Which I think should make it fully valid to be posted in said discussions ... GELongstreet (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you are saying. Though one thing that should be noted is that, even if the user doesn't mind Reddit users knowing about their Wikipedia account, the same might not be true vice versa. This is a tricky situation; an administrator's opinion is definitely needed more than ever. DarkKnight2149 17:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

More importantly, I think you should avoid posting any more links until this has wrapped. DarkKnight2149 17:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Most importantly, the real identity of any person on Wikipedia or any other website is an open question, we don't know if the person posting on reddit is an impersonator or not; part of the reason why WP:OUTING is so important is that, since we have no real way to confirm someone's real identity, it is wrong to link a Wikipedia account or IP address to a real person because there's no way to know if the "evidence" (in this case a person on Reddit) is really that person. We needn't get into all of that here. We don't make excuses "but they admitted it off-wiki..." etc., because we don't know if they actually did, or if someone is just pretending. A bad idea overall to even acknowledge it. --Jayron32 18:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well if they are not the same person, why would they make this complaint saying that they're being doxed? Also in the link they mention asking someone to make an award that the user in question has given himself, and these are all at least from over seven months ago so this person had to have been impersonating them for quite a long time and have been hyper specific about it if they are not the same. But still what about the calls to Raid pages? 144.13.82.132 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The previous incident was subject to WP:OVERSIGHT which means that even admins can't compare this to the diffs from then to see if this was a similar incident to explain why K.e.coffman might have thought reporting here was best. At the same time, if these are similar, the fact that the previous edits by another user have been suppressed is a good sign this probably shouldn't have been posted on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic arguing and content dispute. DarkKnight2149 21:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not to mention the user in question has blanked entire articles multiple times before to the detriment of the Military History Group. 144.13.82.132 (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC) It's true that I've been accused of "vandalism", "deletionism", of conducting a "misguided de-Nazification campaign", being "anti-German" (alternatively, being from German wikipedia), plus other offenses up to, and including, "McCarthyism" and "book burning" (see: discussion at MilHist Talk page) :-). The two editors being discussed here, one of them an IP-hopping anon user, find my editing problematic and disagree with it. If they both feel strongly about my "deletionism" and "vandalism" then the appropriate venue to discuss it would be at his noticeboard, not on Talk pages: User_talk:GELongstreet#Deleted_Page_and_About_K.e.coffman. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Yes I had to go to work and I am on a different computer, now care to address the calls to edit pages based purely on emotion made by the reddit account in question, flippant attitude towards other Wiki members? Not to mention that if it is really you like you seem to imply by this Doxxing complaint, that is shows your very ovious bias towards articles and pages you have blanked, changed, or otherwise removed and that the Military History group have had to fix? And with the Dagger article why make a redirect to a page that holds no information about said object whatsoever? 144.13.82.132 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC) I thought that the "appropiate venue" for a discussion should at first be the project talk page without need to involve the admins; hoping that a concensus could be found, that the other project members would speak up (several did) and that certain parties would stop their, in my opinion, biased unconstructive editing and use their proven abilities to do something useful. That's why I began the original discussion over there. The reddit stuff if just a continuation of that and therefore was posted there, too. The content of the reddit-stuff clearly shows that my hopes for that discussion can only be reached partially ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Re: do something useful, please see: User:K.e.coffman#Contributions. Re: SS Ehrendolch, this article has been tagged as lacking citations from April 2015. The IP might also want to source the Meine Ehre heißt Treue article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC) So instead of finding some/rewriting to add some in you blank the page entirely? Also care to address the other things Mentioned in my post?144.13.82.132 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC) also said page makes only one reference to a SS dagger with the saying engraved on it, not the specific dagger, which, why does it not deserve a page? 144.13.82.132 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC) I thought this report was about whether or not doxxing occurred. Perhaps we can stay on topic and keep the content disputes elsewhere? DarkKnight2149 21:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have oversighted some material discussed in this section. Anyone who continues to play games to see how close they can come to doxxing will be blocked. I think some oversighters might have blocked already, but I will do so only if it proves necessary. DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: You may also want to delete this. DarkKnight2149 20:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:76.187.251.61

The IP user 76.187.251.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) would not stop disrupting the article List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The IP user would not properly cite a proper, accurate reference for the addition as well as removal of content. They are also repeatedly adding in dead links as citation. DantODB (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

According to warnings on their talk page they are also plagiarizing from websites onto articles as well. Looking at their history they seem to be a problem IP. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The ip user has blanked their talk page and not edited since. El_C 12:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, they're back. El_C 20:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User continues to remove information with proper citations as well as cherry-pick facts to put into the article. DantODB (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Request semi-protection at World Financial Group

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

---

• World Financial Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The New York Times says this is a multi-level marketing company, and attempts to remove that info come in regularly from throwaway accounts and IP addresses. IP edits: [263][264][265] Throwaway account edits: [266][267]. None of these ever edited anything else; one or two edits to this article and they're never seen again. This has been going on for at least a year, with a new attempt every few weeks. Request semi-protection, since blocking would be pointless. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Nagle Did you go to WP:RfPP? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right; wrong department. John Nagle (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Chocolatebareater

Not sure if User:Chocolatebareater is in breach of the rules or not to be honest. He has created a whole bunch of rugby league player articles that fails WP:RLN & WP:GNG. After they're PROD'd, he removes the PRODs without explanation, resulting in a copious amount of AfD's needing to be opened. I have asked him to consider reading RLN again and to not create the articles, but this has so far been ignored. Recent articles created: Callum Field, Gabriel Fell, Liam Marshall, Josh Eaves, Matty Lees, Josh Gannon, Jonah Cunningham and Ben Morris (rugby league). I would appreciate a more experienced editor taking a look and/or advising please. Cheers – skemcraig⊗ 19:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise I had to give a reason. The reason for all of them is that they are in Super League squads, and so play for professional teams. Chocolatebareater (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Which as I've already told you, does not entitle them to an article. They need to make an appearance in Super League, the National Rugby League or the Challenge Cup in order to pass WP:RLN. Also, you don't need to give a reason to remove a PROD, but I believe you didn't because you knew or suspected your articles failed RLN. – skemcraig⊗ 20:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If I don't need to give a reason then why are you complaining? Also, when you've nominated pages for deletion the discussion has been evenly split. Chocolatebareater (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm "complaining" because you're creating a copious amount of articles you clearly know fail RLN as it stands. The only people !voting keep are you and a few editors who mistakenly think a contract with a pro club passes RLN when it in fact, does not. – skemcraig⊗ 20:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't clearly fail the criteria as there is debate over whether or not is does, and the votes are fairly equal. Chocolatebareater (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

While the debate is ongoing, RLN must be applied as it is now, and no these [268] [269] [270] are far from equal, two of the keep !votes on the latter are actually from you! – skemcraig⊗ 21:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've already apologised for that I didn't realise I had already voted. The Murray and Egodo discussions are evenly split. Chocolatebareater (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "evenly split" – skemcraig⊗ 21:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

3-2 is even, and if you count my duplicate votes one is 3-3! Chocolatebareater (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chocolatebareater: An apology isn't as effective as going back and deleting your second vote. You can't vote twice in a deletion discussion. Also, neither are evenly split. On Murray, four out of six people want it deleted. On Egodo, three out of five have voted delete. Keep in mind that I am an uninvolved editor with no interest in sports, and I am telling you this. DarkKnight2149 21:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please keep in mind I'm a new editor. I tried to undo the edit but it wouldn't let me, told me it would conflict with another edit. Chocolatebareater (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

{EC} Egodo is 4–2 in favour of delete, Murray is also 4–2 in favour of delete and Bent is 5–1 in favour of delete! – skemcraig⊗ 21:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise the nominator counted as a vote. Still not a whitewash though! Chocolatebareater (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• This might be more complicated than it first appears. The issue seems to be about WP:RLN and the notability guidelines for Rugby League Football being more stringent than Rugby Union Football or Associated Football. Most of the new articles would pass under those standards. This gets into the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Discussion of WP:RLN, the ongoing proposed new replacement of WP:RLN at User talk:Fleets/sandboxWPRL notability, and views of opposing editors. The AFD discussions that have taken place are not one-sided, and none have been closed that I can see. Perhaps @Fleets: has some perspective on this. I'd also factor in that the season is about to begin, some of the articles are for players that may well meet WP:RLN shortly. Perhaps the solution is sorting out WP:RLN rather than sanctioning users at this time. Nfitz (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome changes to WP:RLN regarding players who play for fully pro clubs that are in the Championship (rugby league) and League One (rugby league). The Super League players in question though have not yet played and to assume they soon will would surely be a breach of WP:CRYSTAL? I should have mentioned to User:Chocolatebareater that s/he has userspace/sandboxes to create articles away from the mainspace until they're ready for proper articles though. – skemcraig⊗ 20:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I've have not seen that discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Discussion of WP:RLN, I will take a look now. – skemcraig⊗ 20:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Chocolatebareater: What about the many warnings and messages you have received? From what I can tell, you rarely ever leave edit summaries or respond to other users. DarkKnight2149 20:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something I haven't received any warnings, and I have responded to other users, both on @Fleets talkpage and one WP:RLN. As for edit summaries, this will be something I will try to do more of, although it was fairly obvious that the edits were removing the speedy deletion. Chocolatebareater (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Please don't slam new editors even after a few mistakes, maybe try to carefully teach them instead. Chocolatebareater and I have had a brief talk page discussion, and he or she seems genuinely interested in doing well and mixing in with Wikipedia. Maybe one of the Rugby editors could colab with CBE, either on an existing page or one that they are trying to get to stick. Now here they find themselves up on some kind of charges. So Chocolatebareater, as I've mentioned before, please endure the climb up the Wikipedia hill, ask questions as you've done in this section, and have fun. It gets better. Randy Kryn 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I fully support Randy Kryn's proposal. Even as a veteran editor, I am fully aware of the learning curve that Wikipedia has. After observing the discussion as an uninvolved editor, I don't believe that CBE is being intentionally disruptive. Pairing them with an experienced editor would be a great idea. DarkKnight2149 21:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I do not believe Chocolatebareater should be blocked or anything like that. I would like him/her to realise that policy like WP:RLN cannot be simply ignored because you don't like it. I don't think any sanctions are forthcoming, but If any sanctions at all come from this ANI discussion, it should only be as far as Chocolatebareater being barred from creating anymore player articles until they agree to follow the RLN policy as it stands. – skemcraig⊗ 21:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm not sure I'm cut out for this editing lark. I have tried to make a positive impact, and have certainly not purposely broken any rules. Hopefully I have done some good during my brief time editing. I wish you all the best in editing in general and coming up with new guidelines for rugby league players. Cheers. Chocolatebareater (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chocolatebareater: If you want to leave, there's nothing we can do to stop you. But if you want my advice, don't let one misunderstanding stop you from editing if that's what you enjoy doing. Also bare in mind that there are a number of other Wiki sites that are much more lenient than the mainstream Wikipedia, depending on which best suits your interests. DarkKnight2149 22:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

{EC} Try and read the guidelines and policies as you come across them, take other editors advice etc.. and you can be "cut out for this editing lark" as you put it. I'm only a newbie myself after all and still learning all the ropes. Rather than early retirement from the Wiki, maybe consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league instead? – skemcraig⊗ 22:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Chocolatebareater, right now, without answering, go to the article of either your favorite Rugby player or the article of the best Rugby player in history (who I wouldn't recognize from Adam) and make an edit in or near the lead. Find a word that you can improve, or add a comma, or make sure each sentence flows well and explain the information or concept. Imagine thousands of readers reading that page, and your edit both improving their experience and their overall understanding of the topic. There are some edits you will remember for years, and add the page to your watch list to make sure good edits have a chance of sticking around. And if you really want to leave, at least make that edit you'll remember. Randy Kryn 22:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't like the outcome that User:Chocolatebareater is chased away from the project. His crime was creating 12 new articles for rugby players, that though well referenced and a lot better than many new player creations, might not (or might depending on differing views) be notable. I don't like this at all. We need editors like User:Chocolatebareater, who was working in good faith, but still got treated to generic talk page notices, and then brought here and subjected to WP:BITE. I'd be much happier to see him creating more new articles, perhaps to fill in some red links for fully professional squads. Or improve some of the existing articles. No, I don't like this at all. I'm not sure how the project has been improved by this whole thing. Please come and contribute again! Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope the irony of you accusing me of BITING Chocolatebareater isn't lost on you. (FYI, you're now biting me as I came here in good faith to seek advice and guidence in dealing with an editor creating multiple articles that fail notability guidelines, requiring copious amounts of AfDs!)

Anyway, clearly I'm not cut out for this editing lark either and like Chocolatebareater, I'm outta here! Frankly, I viewed myself as a volunteer and I had only the best interests of the project at heart. I don't need to be bashed for trying my best as a volunteer. Best of luck to everyone here and keep up the good work making this the biggest and best encyclopedia on the web. Skemcraig (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the irony isn't lost on me. To be honest, I hadn't realized you User:Skemcraig were new to the project as well. And you came here in good faith - and did do everything right. I'm sorry for biting. Your edits have been valuable, and I don't want to lose you either. I wasn't trying to criticize you, so much as lament the situation that lead to User:Chocolatebareater leaving. So please stay. Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither Skemcraig nor Chocolatebareater should leave the project, as they are both good faith users and new users are Wikipedia's greatest resource. However, this discussion is getting too reminiscent of WP:TANTRUM for my taste. DarkKnight2149 16:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic tangents
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see your point, though a little love doesn't hurt. We've seen month-long love-ins when long-established admins have "resigned" after a block, didn't see anyone reference tantrum then! Nfitz (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Nfitz, "a repressive humour-impaired regime"? No, we have not seen month-long love-ins, and I don't know what you mean with "resigned". I think you are going for levity here, but it's not taking off: this has the air velocity of a dodo. Next time try making a joke at your own expense, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Drmies My odd and dry sense of humour will always get me in trouble - it certainly got me my previous block. The meaning of my comment was that I've seen a lot of people running to say nice things to Admins who put up a resign notice, before coming back to the project. In my edit comment I made a joke about it being a different rule for admins. I then put a smiley to make sure no one thought I was being anything but light-hearted in my edit summary. But then to make sure that no one missed the smiley, I made a joke about the smiley, referring to my previous edit a few minutes earlier in the "POV Pushing in Conservative Articles" thread. By "resigned" I mean a resignation from Wikipedia that was short-lived - putting it in quotes meaning they didn't really resign. "repressive humour-impaired regime" plays off my comment in the other thread about the state of politics in the USA, and the old meme that Americans don't get irony. I could diff you a month-long love-in that I recall - but that seems mean-spirited given the one I'm thinking of, is of an admin who frequents here. Sorry, it just doesn't work very well, when I have to explain the whole thing! Humour always seems to be a dangerous thing here - that discussion we had about a type of pudding this morning was in my mind innocuous humour. Clearly others saw it differently. I wonder if there's some regional differences to the reactions. Nfitz (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Skemcraig, please note that we value your contributions here highly, and hope you will stay. Please also note that per WP:PROD, a PROD can be removed by any editor with no explanation at all. If after the removal you still think an article merits deletion, your options are either tagging it for WP:SPEEDY deletion, or nominating it at AFD. While notability guidelines can be frustratingly ambiguous, unfair, or open to interpretation, we do have processes here to try to make things as fair as possible for all editors while still preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia. Best wishes, and I hope you return. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

An editor with narrow focus, possibly politically motivated

Could an experienced admin please look at Special:Contributions/85.60.140.142? He's possibly politically motivated and I'm not sure how reliable his contributions are. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP is changing articles of people and changing their nationality from "British" to "Scottish", which in itself isn't disruptive so long as the changes are correct. Do we know if these changes are correct or if they're not? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP has conflated nationality and ethnicity in at least one edit summary [271] and moved on to things like this [272]. They're a nationalist battleground editor. Acroterion (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

To add, England, Wales, Scotland and northern island make up the UK. Thus a person can be "Scottish" and "British" they cannot be "English" and "Scottish". Scotland does not have it's own passports.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Also many are not "Scottish" not having been born there, but just live or play there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of personal opinion and taste, Andy Murray has publicly declared himself to be British, but Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon wouldn't dream of being called anything other than Scottish. Calling someone from Northern Ireland "British" is factually incorrect, while saying they are "from the UK" can be contentious and is best avoided, Ian Paisley would have probably been okay about it, while Gerry Adams would have had steam coming out of his ears (to put it mildly). If the IP is running ramshod through articles without getting a consensus for each one, they're being disruptive and can be blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Edit summaries like "I assume this was written by an indignant anglo who can't get over the fact we're about to wipe the floor with him in 2 weeks time! Goodbye!'" and "No citation - Selkirk was indeed the subject of Robinson Crusoe, the truth backed by citation and common reason, as it is known fact that no Englishman has the capacity to survive on his own wits, and must for his own benefit be instructed by a Scotsman" don't exactly suggest non-partisan motivation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Short block. There was an account that did this kind of stuff, and ended up either indeffed or indef topic banned from such changes — I don't remember the name. Anyway, the IP has made several edits of the same nature after Acroterion's recent level 3 disruption warning. I've blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC).

• Richard Cavell, Oshwah, Acroterion, Slatersteven, Ritchie333, Boing! said Zebedee, Bishonen: Block has expired. Is the user editing better now, or still creating problems? Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• They haven't edited since the block, Softlavender. Not from that IP at least, hint hint. Bishonen | talk 11:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC).

POV Pushing in Conservative 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.

---

FYI

 – This falls under a discretionary sanctions topic. Requests for enforcement should probably be done at arbitration enforcement. --slakr^\ talk / 11:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I've talked about it a number of times on AE and Arbcom cases, but this is one of the most blatent POV pushing cases I've seen. Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) is going to Republican articles and adding political talking points to the lead of the articles, generally eclipsing the rest of the lead covering the rest of their lives. This violates WP:UNDUE at the very least but certainly WP:NPOV. He's doing it en masse. Examples: [273][274][275][276][277][278]. This list is not exhaustive, this is just a few in the last day. This kind of blatant POV pushing needs to stop immediately.--v/r - TP 17:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I know that these types of lede edits (not only by the above user) to put contentious or positioning statements in ledes have been happening with more frequency over the last year or so, just going what I see at BLP/N. It doesn't address the present ANI but I'm slowly developing a proposal eventually to present for how to handle politically-charged articles that links a number of policy/guidelines given WP:NOT#NEWS/WP:DEADLINE among other policies. Most of these types of comments should be only added years down the road after the politically charged arena has tempered down. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:lead: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I have never added anything to a lede that isn't accurate, reliably sourced and reflective of the content of the rest of the article. Could you mention something specific that I've added to a lede that hasn't been? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You've been copying the most controversial parts of only Conservative articles to prejudice the reader from the beginning in clear violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. You've focused specifically on issues liberals would find controversial. In addition, WP:LEAD says "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section."--v/r - TP 17:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Leading advocate of immigration reform" in this edit is quite obviously not borne out by reliable (secondary) sources. TParis, has this editor been advised of discretionary sanctions for BLPs and for American politics?

And you just did this--inserting a claim based on 538, which isn't unreliable, but it's the kind of site that reports statistics on everyone and thus the argument that this is noteworthy (let alone leadworthy) isn't based on anything but your own judgment. The "ushering in socialism" claim was sourced to the subject's own op-ed piece in his local newspaper (the citation should cite Telegraph Herald, which like Highbeam is not a journal). So no. Opinions become interesting if secondary sources verify that they're interesting; same with mere statistics. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. As you know, I don't frequent the site often anymore. I came across this on my talk page. In fact, now that I've stepped away to put boxes away (moving into my new house), I've realized I skipped a step by not discussing this with Snooganssnoogans first.--v/r - TP 17:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The one example that you gave that I kind of agree with is something that I didn't even add to the lede. The lede of 'David Valadao' has had the disputed text in it before I ever edited the page[279], and I would be perfectly fine with removing it from the lede. "Ushering in socialism" was removed from Blum's page on the basis that Blum didn't write that (except that he did, it's his op-ed). I restored it because the justification was erroneous. The 538 tracking is a good summary of where the politician stands politically. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• TParis, I believe you are correct: this user is POV pushing and it needs to stop. Thank you for bringing this up. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This IMHO is even worse:

• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...
• In February 2017, s/he voted against a resolution...

All/mostly? in a dedicated "Trump" section. I don't recall dedicated "Obama" sections for (D)s, lots of Reps though maybe I'm missing it. 107.77.223.169 (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Barack Obama is not a contentious politician among Democrats, and the attitudes of Dem congressmen towards him has never been an issue deemed worthy of coverage by reliable sources. Trump is indisputably one among Republicans. Its' definitely encyclopedic to cover where they stand on him, and every GOP congressman received extensive coverage by reliable sources on what she/he thought about Trump and his policies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this just a content dispute that would be addressed by NPOV edits -- addition or removal? I don't see this as a NOTNEWS problem. The content may change over time but the content seems to refer to large acknowledged social or political issues. It's not like they're about last year's Memorial Day parade. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems like you can make a plausible argument that these various congressmen's actions in regards to Trump is one of the more historically important facts. Seems like a content dispute to me.Casprings (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The user is going around to Conservative articles specifically en masse. It needs to stop before it can be fixed. And adding it to the lead isn't a content issues, it's a policy violation.--v/r - TP 17:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Don't worry. I'll do the Democratic congresspeople as well. As can be seen from my history, my focus is primarily on political positions. I wrote much of the Pol Positions articles for Trump and Clinton, and the Pol Positions sub-sections for Kaine and Pence, so this is a long-standing interest. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you won't. You'll take the advice of multiple people here and quit this altogether. Find another website to push your agenda on. It's not welcome at this one. --Jayron32 18:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any specific concerns with the content that I add and suggestions on how to improve it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with the above assessments. This is clearly pushing an agenda, and cherry-picking sources, unbalancing articles, and needs to stop. --Jayron32 18:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I also agree. Obvious BLP violations and certainly looks like pov pushing. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Could you give one example of a BLP violation that I've added? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry, POV, but I guess POV violations in a BLP article could often be considered BLP issues. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
        • It would really help if you'd point to one article and specific bits of content that violate POV to clarify your objections and help me understand where you're coming from. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
          • I find it hard to believe you havent read it after 4000 edits and 2 years of editing, but if you haven't, the problem is rooted in WP:UNDUE.--v/r - TP 19:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
            • Are your concerns limited to WP:UNDUE in the lede or are the edits as a whole violating WP:UNDUE? The other editors are not being clear. Either way, I disagree and don't see how they violate WP:UNDUE either for lede or the edits as a whole. My editing is completely consistent with how we did it at the Pol Positions of DT and HRC, and on the Pol Positions sub-sections for Kaine and Pence. I'm not exactly new at this. That's why I'm confused by the reaction above and asking for specific examples. The only specific example that I agreed crossed a line was for content that I did not originally add and would never add. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
              • I don't know how it was done at those 4 articles. But, as I've been told, we treat each article on its own merits. I imagine those four articles have 4 or 5 paragraph leads which would make adding a paragraph on their political positions somewhat proper weight. But you're going to articles with one paragraph summarizing the entire article and adding another paragraph specifically on issues that Liberals find controversial and would take a negative view on and then adding that to the lead. That's inappropriate. If you want to write a nuetral paragraph on their political positions, giving all positions due weight in the paragraph, and then that paragraph on political positions was then given it's own due weight in comparison to other content in the lead, that would be okay. But you haven't. Not only is the political positions part overwhelming for the leads of most of those articles, but you're focusing on specific political positions that you personally find controversial. That's undue and it's POV pushing.--v/r - TP 20:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
                • I just add issues that I find notable, and most of them strike me as common sense. They are not added to anger liberals. I try to cram as much as I can in the lede but some things just got to go for readability's sake. The stances that GOP politicians have will in most cases be things that liberals disapprove of and conservatives approve of, so if any political positions are going to be added to the lede, they will in most cases be things that some people approve of and others disapprove of. There's no way around that, unless you're advocating for a policy of omitting any political positions that happen to be controversial. So I don't understand the basis of your complaint, and don't think your inferred solution is workable. So far, I have usually mentioned politicians' voting records (as measured by 538 and ProPublica) and their positions on Obamacare, same-sex marriage, abortion, the environment and Trump. If the candidates have an obvious pet issue, I usually add that too, but it's difficult to tell with representatives in the House because they are just so much less visible than Senators or presidential candidates. Foreign policy and the economy are usually too nuanced and specific to summarize in the lede. If there is some controversy that takes up much space in the article, I usually add that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
              • Specific examples re: WP:UNDUE: We interacted on Immigration and crime where you tried to add a sub-section on Fox News and Donald Trump, including an entire paragraph on Nils Bildt. A review of the article and existing headings (and the RFC for those curious) shows the problem clearly. And this shoehorning of "Trump" into the Gaslighting article is particularly inappropriate. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
                • • This is not AFAIK what this noticeboard talk is about. And neither of those are examples of WP:UNDUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
                • To add, the reason NOTNEWS is important is that most of these changes incorporate poltical banter and posturing, things that we have no idea if with 20/20 hindsight accurately should be included in a BLP's lede summary or in the body, yet edits like these are rushing to include the "ickiest" details readily covered by the less-objective press. Editors need to recognizing the political arena right now is super toxic, and nearly impossible us as a neutral encyclopedia to weed out the encyclopedic facts from simple political mudslinging. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
                  • Very toxic - perhaps a topic ban for anyone whose IP geolocates inside the USA. I'm not sure Americans can convince everyone else, that you've haven't all gone off the deep end. All sides. No one seems to be NPOV any more. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
                    • For what? Electing Trump? The significant majority of American voters went against Trump. The peculiarities of the Electoral College system put him in office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
                      • Not to mention, lost their ability (if they ever had it), to laugh in the face of adversity. Do I need to put a smiley in the summary of an ironic comment? Nfitz (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
                        • This is Wikipedia; You need to beat most editors, even us silly ones over the head with the fact that you're being ironic or sarcastic. I prefer my little link, for that task. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• I just "tweaked" one of their edits here--we got a bot that autofixes those citation errors, right? I didn't realize that further on in the article they were just refnames--I though, incorrectly, that they were all simply cited twice. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, AnomieBOT should fix it soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• This is pretty blatant and widespread POV pushing, and so much so that it's hard to find a recent edit that isn't. I'm not sure if the fact that they appear to think they are being neutral makes it better or worse.

I believe I first met the user at Jill Stein, and I am currently involved with them at Sebastian Gorka via a request for mediation from another user, where there is an ongoing RfC regarding apparently characteristic issues: content about a current political figure in debatable BLP grounds. They've definitely shown themselves to have a dependable and fairly strong POV on US political issues, which is fine sometimes, but not if they are carpet bombing articles, and especially not when they are editing and reverting in a way that is completely inconsistent with detailed discussion. In my experience, they definitely seem to be a a magnet for heated disputes wherever they edit, almost entirely political articles, which again, is fine sometimes, but not in seldom visited articles on fairly medium/minor federal government officials, and not in a way that is mass produced.

So having said all that, I totally support as topic ban on BLP articles related to US politics. The user does not seem to understand what being overly cautious and overtly neutral in these areas means, and these are the very articles that we have an elevated obligation to safeguard. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Snooganssnoogans there appears to be substantial evidence that you have been engaging in a campaign of political POV editing. Further it appears that there is a strong consensus supporting this conclusion among experienced editors. Given that you were advised in August of last year that the topic of post 1932 American Politics is subject to discretionary sanctions I believe that you are a serious candidate for a topic ban. If you or anyone else on here thinks there are compelling reasons why you should not be topic banned from this subject, I would like to read them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have never added anything to the articles in question that wasn't accurate, reliably sourced and would be mentioned on any major politician's article (e.g. mentioning that a politician opposes/supports abortion, same-sex marriage, Obamacare etc.). I have repeatedly asked the users here to highlight specific examples of POV pushing so that I can improve my edits per the suggestions. The only specific example of POV pushing that was brought up and that I agreed with was for content that I never added to an article (the disputed content in the David Valadao lede). The concerns that the users above cite also vary considerably, with some merely asking that political positions not be added to ledes, and others bringing up content disputes from unrelated pages that they happen to be involved in (e.g. me adding reliably sourced content to Sean Hannity, Immigration and Crime, Gaslighting, Sebastian Gorka). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• I called out this editor, Snooganssnoogans, for agenda pushing at the Sean Hannity article and get slapped with a warning for a personal attack. Its really time that the project puts a lid on these types of POV editors. --Malerooster (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm going to have to reluctantly support a temporary topic ban. I have seen that this editor is thoughtful and rational in my interactions with them, and I have no doubt that they are editing in good faith, and hardly any doubt that they fully believe they are improving the encyclopedia with these edits. Indeed, each individual edit seems to be defensible in and of itself. But when looked at as a whole, a pattern emerges. I believe that if left to their own devices, this editor might eventually contribute to the formation of the much-lamented (though hitherto almost entirely fictional) liberal bias of Wikipedia. I think a three month topic ban might be enough to give them time to see how the political articles evolve without their input and perhaps get a handle on how to edit more objectively. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Note the striking of the above !vote. See my comments in the warning subsection below for the rationale. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Each edit has most definitely been defensible. There is no pattern except to bring the politicians's stated political positions into the encyclopaedia. This is how a minimum edit looks like: (i) Add summary voting records from 538 and ProPublica + (ii) for/against abortion + (iii) for/against same-sex marriage + (iv) for/against federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions (v) endorsed Trump or not (vi) for/against Obamacare (vii) summarize positions in the lede. These are the issues that are easiest to find material on and can be written into the articles with ease (foreign policy and economy are more nuanced). I also usually add whatever pops up in recent coverage by reliable sources, but that will differ for each congressperson. Should I stop adding some or all of these? Would users be fine with me editing congresspeople's articles if I do the minimum edit (above) or only parts of the minimum edit? These are all genuine questions, because I believe there is strong encyclopedic value in simply denoting where congresspeople stand on basic issues (something that most of these articles lack). If the editors could come together and agree on what I can and can't add to congresspeople's articles, I would abide by that. Most of my edits follow the formula mentioned above, so it shouldn't be difficult to say what in the formula doesn't belong and what does belong. That's why I'm asking for specific examples throughout this talk. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Hang on, I'm trying to ignore foreign politics - but what you just listed as 6 of the issues you added (from your description above) are all clearly right-wing wedge issues - and the first seems very minor. And you've completely ignored more serious issues like economical issues (wasn't jobs a huge issue in the election?) and foreign policy? That just sounds odd to me. Nfitz (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Economy is way too complicated to add for these obscure congresspeople. See, for instance, Jeff Denham's 'economy' On the Issue page[280]. It's both incredibly incomplete and super-specific. The foreign policy issues for these politicians is usually just a list of interventions or trade agreements that they supported or didn't support. If I were to edit foreign policy issues in, it would usually just become a laundry list. So, it would be way too time-consuming for me to comprehensively edit it in their economic and foreign policy philosophies, which in many cases these politicians don't seem to have. For big-shot politicians (presidential candidates and senators), this is less of an issue. For those politicians, you can easily find a reliable source summarizing their philosophy on economic and foreign policy issues. It would, for instance, be a piece-of-cake to find a short and sweet description of Lindsay Graham's philosophy. For a two-term congressman from Iowa, it's going to take way longer. If someone wants to add economy and foreign policy to the pages of these individuals, I strongly recommend you try! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Also to clarify: the six issues are just simple for/against issues that exist on the record (so they are easy to find and easy to write into articles), which simply don't exist for foreign policy and economy. Nobody is for/against jobs, for/against war. It's too nuanced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Oh, I forgot: A second clarification: Note that the formula above is just the minimum. I do add economic issues when they are short and sweet, and can be reliably sourced. For instance, I have added "X favors a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution", "X favors auditing the Federal Reserve", "X voted against the Stimulus" etc. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
        • You just had an election. Presumably you do like other countries, and candidates have websites with all their positions and platforms on it. No one is against jobs, but (here at least) we heard about TPP being a big issue in the election; presumably each legislator had a position on it. Some must be pro-war give the news reports of the US Government looking to start a war with Iran. Abortion (how can this be a real issue in secular advanced democracy - even same-sex marriage as in issue is fading away) - it's not what we hear reports about from the USA, other than fear-mongering from the left wing trying to stir the pot and don't vote for X, because they are going to do Y (even though they never did Y when they were in power in the past in less enlightened times) - I don't see the need to list the opinions on such past issues any more than other issues of the past that no longer create any controversy such as slavery, prohibition, or segregation. I'm sure there's still some politicians out there that support prohibition - but one doesn't mention it. Internationally at least, what we hear about the USA are issues are gun control (particularly automatic weapons), murder rate, drugs (particularly the legalization of some recreational drugs), the prison problems, the 99% vs 1% (the disappearance of the middle class), refugees, BLM, First Nations, pipelines, the rise of white nationalism, Islamophobia/anti-Semitism, Cuba, illegal immigrants (wasn't the billions of dollars for the Wall a big issue there, we heard endless reports about it). Why didn't you pick any of these issues? I'm just trying to understand how you happened to select those issues in particular - as I'm concerned the very selection of which issues, may be NPOV bias. Nfitz (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Just to get it out of the way, I'm not American. I do mention some of the issues that you mention, but usually only if they pop up in a Google Search and have therefore been covered by reliable sources. They are not intentionally being omitted. Note that many of these politicians do not get extensive coverage, and it is hard to find their positions on specific issues without looking for those issues specifically. The issues that you mention are definitely relevant. When I contribute in the future, I will definitely google the congressperson's name and also "TPP", "Cuban embargo", "Iran deal" etc., provided that I will be allowed to edit congresspeople's pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
            • I'll have to spend more time thinking about this - honestly a lot of the edits seem quite reasonable - but there's a lot of stuff to look at. I had assumed you were American; out of curiosity, why the interest in foreign legislators? I guess my joke about geolocking fell flat ... Nfitz (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
              • Difficult to say where the interest comes from (yesterday, I also added content to the [boll weevil]] and Militarized interstate dispute, but it'd be difficult to explain why - something that many Wikipedia editors probably recognize!) but for a short history of my editing on political pages, I started editing on pages related to US politics last summer, primarily as a way for me to learn about the stated political positions of Trump and Clinton but also due to a frustration that the stated political positions of the candidates seemingly did not matter and did not get any attention. So I started editing "Political positions of Donald Trump"[281] and "Political positions of Hillary Clinton"[282], both as a way for me to take notes and to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Before that, I primarily added social science (poli sci, econ, sociology) research to all kinds of pages (I still do). As I grew more and more familiar with editing on US political pages, I thought there would be encyclopaedic value in me adding similar content to Mike Pence and Tim Kaine's pages, and from that point I've edited considerably on pages that are relevant to US politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have removed all mention of any political positions from ledes I added for congresspeople (some other user mass-removed the rest) as a compromise until this is settled. It would be good if the users here could clarify what content if any can be added to the lede of a congressperson. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not going to be some magic formula or black and white policy. It depends on the size of the article, the size of the lead, and the content of the article. If it's a large article that is primarily dominated by controversies, then a lead dominated by controversies would be appropriate. If there are three or four sentences about controversies in an otherwise length article, no mention is appropriate. You have to use good editorial judgement and so far you haven't shown any. I think you need to get experience editing in an area not under Arbcom sanctions until you figure this out.--v/r - TP 20:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand the concern and will comply: if a political position (or any other content) does not receive lots of coverage in the article, it shouldn't be added to the lede. I know that what follows is erroneous thinking, but the reason why I thought a list of various political positions belonged in the lede was that ca 25-40% of each politician's article was roughly devoted to political positions. The problem with that, and which I now realize, is that no specific political position received inordinate coverage in the article (e.g. took up 15% of the whole article) and should therefore not have been included in the lede. So even if, say, healthcare is an important issue, it was undue to put it in the lede unless that particular position received extensive coverage in the article. Assuming that healthcare, unless extensively covered, was notable enough for the lede was WRONG. I get that now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I modified an edit by Snoogan where he dropped in a reference to Roger Stone being a liar and conspiracy theorist in the lead. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Stone&diff=768230689&oldid=768230344. But I hope someone can clean up all the rest of the NPOV edits he's made if he doesn't get around to them himself. Jarwulf (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Like it or not, that text is cited to the Washington Post and The New York Times. What's the behavioral issue? We don't adjudicate content discussions on this page. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Its not a matter of him simply inserting information, its the matter he went about it. Try inserting a well referenced story about a Democrat in the lead of every article about mental illness you can find and see how far you get with that no matter how true the story may be. Jarwulf (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

CommentThe OP, user:TParis, seems to have a long term axe to grind here. [283],and admits the problem is getting to him [284]. I think you have clear evidence that his viewpoints about other editors behavior are heavily influenced and differ wildly from other admins. For example, here, he comments on an AE [285] which eventually produced these sanctions on User:TheTimesAreAChanging . In sum, I think TParis has a bias towards believing conservatives are persecuted and this posting should be viewed with some suspicion. Is one way to view these posting as negative to subjects that relate to conservatives? Certainly. But it is also true that these are well sourced edits. Does finding and sourcing of facts in multiple articles equate to a POV pushing or does it equate to doing research in an area that interests you and putting that research into the relevant articles? This seems like a bit of a witch hunt to me that is guided by an admin that has a clear bias. Casprings (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please be clear here, do you intend to defend the edits above or are you just here to attack me?--v/r - TP 21:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that your viewpoints should be looked at in the context of this complaint. You are an experienced admin and have shown clear bias in your views that you admit. That isn't attacking, that is stating what you yourself admit. It is not difficult to believe that you could build an argument that is subjective and dependent on how one views an editor. To me, the edits presented seem to be well sourced and each one is defendable on its own. When taking them together, are they POV pushing? Maybe. Or maybe they are examples of research and integration into relevant articles. However, it is worth noting that the case was presented by an admin with self-admitted bias.Casprings (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ohh, okay, I see the disconnect. You haven't read the complaint. Because WP:V isn't the problem. WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD is. Besides, self admitted bias is a good thing. Wish more people were self-aware instead of believing they are neutral.--v/r - TP 21:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Propose warning for Snoo....s

It's hard to see these edits as willfully disruptive, and Snooo seems to understand the concerns here. I do not see that a preventive block or ban is needed. I suggest a warning and voluntary compliance. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Snooo seems to understand the concerns here No, they pretty clearly don't seem to understand why this is a form of POV pushing. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Snooo does not seem to understand the concern. Snooo said in this edit that the only POV pushing they can see was from an edit they didn't make. They've described six criteria that they personally find interesting to put in the lead. They admitted that the issues do not get extensive coverage and they've had to look specifically for the issues they personally find notable. This all flies in the face of WP:V, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. They have cheery picked which parts of policies they wish to adhere to and have engaged in WP:IDHT behavior: [286][287][288][289][290]. Snooo most certainly hasn't realized yet that WP:UNDUE isn't optional and the material they've added to the lead is inappropriately placed to push a POV. This is highly partisan editing and in contravention to the Arbcom sanctions in place.--v/r - TP 20:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have already willingly removed the content that I added to ledes (see also comment above). If adding political positions to ledes is off, I'm perfectly willing and able to comply with that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Those "six criteria" were not for ledes by the way, so you should strike that remark. Those six things were the minimum content that I added to the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"If adding political positions to ledes is off" - This isn't the issue. It's not what you added, it's the weight that you gave to it by placing it in the lead.--v/r - TP 20:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand the concern and will comply: if a political position (or any other content) does not receive lots of coverage in the article, it shouldn't be added to the lede. I know that what follows is erroneous thinking, but the reason why I thought a list of various political positions belonged in the lede was that ca 25-40% of each politician's article was roughly devoted to political positions. The problem with that, and which I now realize, is that no specific political position received inordinate coverage in the article (e.g. took up 15% of the whole article) and should therefore not have been included in the lede. So even if, say, healthcare is an important issue, it was undue to put it in the lede unless that particular position received extensive coverage in the article. Assuming that healthcare, unless extensively covered, was notable enough for the lede was WRONG. I get that now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm striking my support !vote above because after I made it, I saw where Snooganssnoogans agreed to strike the information from the ledes. Since all sanctions are intended to be preventative, I'm supportive of a warning. Note that this thread serves as a quite effective warning, and so I'm ready to concede that there's nothing more to be gained from this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with MjolnirPants and oppose action being taken against Snooganssnoogans, given that (1) he has clearly acknowledged error, and (2) going forward, the issue won't reoccur. Any further sanction would be punitive rather than preventative. Neutrality^talk 22:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• (ec x3) I still lean toward support. He has acknowledged his errors in lead editing, and explained his new policy; I do not consider it adequate. He has specifically stated that he will make edits to the body which clearly violate WP:UNDUE. IMO, a political position should only be included if there are reliable sources for both accuracy and significance of the politician's position on the issue. (The issue being significant is not adequate.) He has shown no interest in finding sources for even significance of the issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  I should add I am still subject to some article restrictions in this area, so it would be best to consider me WP:INVOLVED. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Edits by S. like that are not a BLP violation because they are sourced and actually do not present anyone in a negative or positive light. This is simply a vote. Yes, things like that are undue in the lead, however they arguably may belong to the body of the page. Telling they "clearly violate WP:UNDUE" is overstatement. This looks like a content dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Doing it once is a content dispute. Doing it en masse in a dozen articles of one specific political persuasion is pov pushing and ANI worth. --v/r - TP 03:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but we have Scouts Honor that he's not going to do that again. No need for further prevention. AGF, I would say. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think every single edit like that is defensible. It inserts info that is more important than something already in the same paragraph. Not disclosing tax returns, after promising to disclose them during his election campaign, in the current political situation is extremely significant. Not requesting to disclose them is also significant and therefore deserves inclusion to these pages. My very best wishes (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits shouldn't just be defensible. That's the lowest possible threshold for validity. If you have to describe something as defensible, then it is the same as acknowledging that there is significant issue. The rest of your comment contains your own personal opinion and I hope you don't let that influence your editorial decision making.--v/r - TP 18:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Dont be ridiculous. Quite often people have to describe edits as such because the 'significant issues' turn out to be bogus. As it stands from reading this entire thread and looking at the edits above, it could equally be argued that someone who wants to keep relevant information out of politician's of a 'specific persuasion' is POV-editing. I have yet to see any credible argument that a)the edits were UNDUE, b)not adaquately sourced, c)otherwise unencyclopedic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I was willing to let this go because Snooo was willing to follow the policy. But if you and My very best wishes chose to continue to defend this behavior, then we can take this to AE and settle it there. There is absolutely no doubt that tripling the size of the lead by picking choice partisan issues in a BLP on conservative only articles is POV pushing. And not stopping with one, but systematically going through dozens of conservative politicans to continue the behavior. If you disagree, you shouldn't be editing in this topic area.--v/r - TP 19:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

)EC)Fine, I will stop responding to your inane argument but only because you have DIRECTLY THREATENED to take Snoo to AE unless we drop it. And since I dont want Snoo to get in trouble for other editors who disagree with you, I am done. But your bullying approach sickens me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that I restored the lede to how it previously looked (I thought I had done so for all congresspeople but this guy slipped me by), so you might want to add a different link in your comment above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• The opinions of the "AE squad" (if you don't know who you are, you should) are pretty inconsequential here, since they're reliably predictable based on the slant of the POV alone. This revert 1) to the POV of the lead, 2) on a BLP, 3) related to US politics, inspires exactly zero confidence that SS understands at all what the issue is, even with an open ANI thread, and with full knowledge that there are people (hi) who are involved in both the article and this thread, and gives exactly zero reason to believe that the same behavior won't continue when people aren't watching. I still support a topic ban on US politics BLPs, and I consider that lenient compared with what would probably appropriately be a well deserved post 1932 topic ban. TimothyJosephWood 13:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You're citing article text with solid RS citations, Washington Post and the like. The content may or may not ultimately survive, but what behavioral issue are you suggesting? Also, if you're trying to bring ad hominems in play here, your aspersions would have more tooth if you'd at least attach names to the "squad" you're attempting to denigrate. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm incredibly surprised to see you characterizing that revert as bad behavior on my behalf. There are two reasons for this: (i) The last time that you purposively sought to trim the lede of the article in question, you left the disputed statement ("fringe") in the lede.[291] (ii) In fact, when we last discussed the "fringe" nature of Gorka on his talk page, you said that there was such an abundance of sources that demonstrate that Gorka lacks a "basic level of expertise" that there is no point adding any further.[292] Note that these sources included editor-in-chiefs of flagship academic journals, and some of the most prominent International Relations professors of the last 20 years. Now, you're chastising me for trying to keep a description of Gorka that you believed was so abundantly supported by reliable sources that we didn't need to add any more? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Perusing these diffs I see content disputes in multiple articles. I've edited none of them, just commenting on the diffs. The Gorka article lead edit, adding "fringe" figure, is mentioned in the body of the article and multiply sourced. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, it's not only well-sourced, but so well-sourced in fact that Timothyjosephwood even asked me to stop adding sources to the main body of the article because it had been so established by the existing sources that he was fringe that adding any more would be beating a dead horse[293]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • This is also a good example of how I heed the concerns of other editors and edit with caution on BLP pages. After being told to stop adding more reliable sources, I did so immediately.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• You know, I see a lot of arguments that Snoo doesn't agree with the concerns expressed here being used to support the claim that Snoo doesn't understand the concerns and respect consensus. I just want to point out that there's no policy saying that all editors have to agree on everything. Snoo's editing history since this thread was open proves that claim is completely wrong. The case against settling for a warning is basically a giant red herring. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it's important to iterate that Wikipedia does not engage in investigative journalism, either from primary or secondary sources. Wikipedia should not cherry-pick bits of information from passing mentions in obscure venues. Wikipedia should always err on the side of caution -- posting only what is covered in articles, from well-known and reliable sources, which contain significant coverage of the subject. Wikipedia should be WP:NPOV and cover issues to the degree and extent they are covered in WP:RS -- no more, no less. WP:OR should be scrupulously avoided. If readers want muckraking and/or investigative journalism, they should and can look elsewhere. Softlavender (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• That said, the toxic environment in US politics lately, results in blurring the line between muckraking and the sort of pivotal content actively sought by our readers. El_C 21:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I guess a part of this toxic environment comes from classifying people (and articles) to "conservatives" and "liberals", as in this discussion. There is no such thing as "conservative article" (a term that appears in the header of this discussion). I do not even know who I am on this scale, and I do not care if other contributors are "conservatives" or "liberals". In particular, disclosing the tax statement (which was a subject of many diffs above) has nothing to do with someone being a "conservative" or a "liberal". All previous US presidents disclosed their tax returns regardless to their political affiliations and views. This is something entirely different. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I was drawn to the Jill Stein page a few months back (shortly pre-election) because it has a section about GMOs that needed to be brought into line with community consensus under DS, but not out of any broader interest in the politics. (For editors unfamiliar with US politics, Stein was the Green Party candidate, and was thus very much opposed to Republicans and conservatives.) And I interacted with Snooganssnoogans there, amidst much broader disputes that were going on. I'm having cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile what I saw there with what I see here. There, Snooganssnoogans was one of the more civil participants in the disputes, and also very consistently took what might be considered the more conservative position about how to balance the POV of the page (ie, critical of Stein's left-leaning positions). It just does not make sense to me that Snooganssnoogans would have an anti-conservative POV, after what I saw there. (Maybe pro-Democratic party, I don't know??) I do however have a sense that he tended to make somewhat heavy-handed edits, that looked to me more like un-skillful editing than POV-pushing. Just saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Either way, he's agreed to take a more careful approach. I think this thread can be closed at this point.--v/r - TP 02:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • That's good, thanks. Given that you, the OP, feel that this discussion is ready for closure, someone please go ahead and close it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang for Malerooster

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

---

Whatever the merits of the rest of this report, User:Malerooster should get a WP:BOOMERANG block for repeated personal attacks.[294][295][296] This appears to be the only way to convince him to follow our WP:NPA rules.[297][298][299] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This note on his talk page is what Malerooster was referring to above when he said he had been "called out". I went to his talk page today because over the last few days he has repeatedly accused other users of "pushing their own personal agenda," simply saying that in lieu of actually discussing the issue. By repeatedly I mean five times in this section alone, as well as other sections of that page. When I asked him to stop, he indicated he was going to keep doing it.

I had admonished him on his talk page twice previously, in November (User talk:Malerooster#Please change your attitude) and January (User talk:Malerooster#Talk:Donald Trump). Those were for actual name-calling and abusive edit summaries, and both times he said he would stop. In November he was also taken to ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive937#User:Malerooster repeatedly swearing at others. That report was closed without action based on his promises to improve. He actually has improved since then (he rarely calls people actual names any more) but still does the occasional abusive edit summary.[300]

I am adding this for information. I have no recommendation about what if any action should be taken in his case. I am WP:INVOLVED in this type of article so I function there as a regular user, not an admin. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Malerooster came back from a DS sanction re:ARBAP2 by @Slakr: and started up with the personal attacks and disruptive edits at @Volunteer Marek: linked above in this section and elsewhere at other editors. Editors are trying to collaborate on these difficult articles, and there should be no tolerance for disruption. I'm not familiar with this Malerooster's entire history, but recidivism is not OK. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Question: May I ask why in the world Malerooster is being brought up here, in this thread? As a WP:BOOMERANG?? Malerooster did not open this ANI filing, nor has he posted more than a grand total of 39 words anywhere in it. If someone wants to file an ANI report about Malerooster, and believes they have adequate evidence to themselves avoid a BOOMERANG, by all means do so (and notify him of the filing), but don't open up a sneaky subthread in an ANI which has nothing to do with him. Softlavender (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Sneaky" is not helpful here. From what I can see, if an editor is going to launch personal attacks and be disruptive, it's not the best strategy to do it in on this page. I might add that Guy, Melanie and SPECIFICO rarely agree on just about anything on WP. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If "sneaky" is not helpful to you, then I'll be clearer: completely inappropriate. Malerooster did not open this ANI filing, did not comment more than 39 words, did not make any personal attacks, and was not disruptive. Softlavender (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Malerooster did not open this ANI filing, did not comment more than 39 words here, did not make any personal attacks here, and was not disruptive here. Softlavender (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: What Malerooster did was to write -- in an ANI thread -- "I called out this editor, Snooganssnoogans, for agenda pushing at the Sean Hannity article and get slapped with a warning for a personal attack. Its really time that the project puts a lid on these types of POV editors." This shows me that Malerooster has no intention of refraining from such personal attacks in the future, and indeed appears to be proud of them. He needs to learn that "because I am right" is not an exception to WP:NPA, and that "calling out" another editor with repeated personal attacks is not allowed even if the other editor actually is a POV pusher. I would also note that some of the above comments appear to ignore the actual text of WP:BOOMERANG, which clearly states that "Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny." Nowhere does that page say that the boomerang only applies to the original reporter or that only action on ANI itself will be scrutinized. There are many examples of ANI discussions where someone participating in the discussion ends up being sanctioned without them being the person posting the original complaint or the person who was originally complained about. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to collapse this subthread as irrelevant (off-topic) and misplaced. If someone wishes to open a completely separate ANI filing about Malerooster, please do so. As is, this thread is distracting from the case at hand and is not relevant to it. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I just reverted Softlavender's improper attempt to shut down a conversation because he she isn't getting his her way. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Her. In fairness, it seems tangentially related to the topic (one brief comment), and if the issues are indeed pressing, probably deserves an ANI notice of its own. El_C 12:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I may be wrong, but as far as I understand it Softlavender doesn´t want to end the conversation but simply wants it to be made into a seperate ANI case (considering that it is brought up here, too) so that this case can be continued or closed. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I just reverted[301] Softlavender's improper attempt to shut down a conversation[302] where he isn't getting his way. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender is starting to edit war[303][304] (2RR, no 3RR violation) in an attempt to shut down my comments. I believe that Malerooster has contributed to the problem being discussed, even though he isn't by any means the major problem. Softlavender has expressed his opinion disagreeing with me, and now it is up to the closing admin to evaluate the arguments and make a decision. It is improper for Softlavender to shut down an ANI conversation about a particular editor after someone else posted an opinion that the editor is part of the problem being discussed. Shutting down the discussion and insisting that I must file a new ANI report right after I quoted the section of WP:BOOMERANG that specifically says that boomerangs are not limited to the original reporter was also improper. I am fine if an uninvolved admin decides to hat the section, but that isn't Softlavender's decision to make. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Paid editing, also promotional

The following discussion is closed. 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 posted the following at Deb's talk:

An editor reverted a talk page post with the edit summary "...The page was not created as promotional but for purely informational purposes about a fashion brand with heritage. Similar page for another brand - Karen Millen...". That is not true. This editor clearly works for Xanda and edited/created Ariella Fashions, Menaye Donkor and Lotus Restaurant, all Xanda clients. The only article edited not clearly a Xanda client is Casa Tua. This editor seems to be here mainly to promote their clients.

I decided that I ought to post here to see what others think. I just inspected this edit further, and now see a link created to the www.she-y.com website, as well as adding that site to ext links. That she-y company, by the way, is also a Xanda client.

I posted at the usertalk asking for them to comply with PAID. Now I think a block may be in order. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I've put a G11 speedy deletion tag on Lotus Restaurant, although it might also be subject to A7. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TonyBallioni added the A7. I actually wasn't aware that one could do multiple reasons for a speedy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, db-multiple with piping. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As they say: I learn something new every day. The article's been deleted under A7 by Bbb23. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User Ultrabomb: Personal attacks and slow motion edit warring

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

---

I apologize if this should be first discussed at WP:AN/3RR, but there is no technical violation of 3RR that I can see, just slow motion edit warring on two articles and a personal attack. Ultrabomb (talk · contribs) has made the same reverts on Ashkenazi Jews ([305], [306], [307], [308], [309]) and Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry ([310], [311], [312], [313], [314]) with almost no attempt at discussion, despite being reverted by several editors. I left two edit warring warnings: [315], [316]. Ultrabomb's only response was to make two personal attacks: [317], [318]. Previously blocked for 24 hours for disruptive edits. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Last block was for a week. This time it's for a month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Poeticbent

Hi would you help me with User:Poeticbent, I am finding his/her remarks towards me offensive and he/she is unwilling to discuss - [319] [320] [321] [322] Artinpl (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Please note, the above spurious report was filed after the WP:UAA notification of Artinpl (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy. Corp name: Artinpl.weebly.com with recent contributions consisting only of edit warring against policy guidelines with misleading and belittling edit summaries.[323]

Also, reverting on my own talkpage.[324] Poeticbent talk 19:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I"m not sure that User:Artinpl would have been pinged when you notified WP:UAA you malformed the address, adding and extra User: to it. Your comment to him seemed a bit rude - but I don't know the history. Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see that User:L3X1 just fixed that while I was also trying to fix it. Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

My comment to him would have never been rude if he didn't call my reasonable and thoughtful edit "vandalism" in the first place. Poeticbent talk 20:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Other than the WP:UAA issue, this looks more like a content dispute. You templated them, with a note that disputes should be taken to a talk page.[325] And then 10 minutes later User:Artinpl tried to take it to your talk, though a little aggressively.[326] Which you then simply deleted with the comment the usual asshollery by a self-righteous newbie who has yet to read our policy guidelines.[327] You are both escalating this with each step. Neither one of you has really tried to talk it out. I don't know why you'd invite him to your talk page, and then simply delete his attempt to talk. This isn't a WP:ANI issue, it's barely even edit warring, given how recently it started. Go talk it out nicely. Don't WP:BITE and be WP:CIVIL. Nfitz (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz, the amount of advice you hand out on ANI is excessive. Please take Timothyjosephwood's post on your talkpage to heart, and stop feeding experienced editors alphabet soup re our best-known policies and other noble sentiments. I really don't believe that ever has a good effect. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC).

I don't see what's wrong with pointing important policies to experienced editors, that they are clearly ignoring; that's only the polite thing to do I think. It's not meant to be anything other than helpful. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with what I've suggested. My apologies if it offended anyone. Other than that, I don't think this is the place for that conversation. Nfitz (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Is anything needed from me re: this section?L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Nfitz (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

such comments, like asshollery are acceptabe here? I don't belive this! Artinpl (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL WP:NPA What are you considering *(^&#*&%? If you have something to say, state it, don't insult.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

he? I'm not insuting anyone what's this?? Artinpl (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC) I was insulted and nothing? Artinpl (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC) :Hello Artinpl,

• 1st. Please learn proper indentation, type colons in succession as the conversation flows. See above wikitext for demonstrations.
• 2nd, you are insulting. When you come and say that these comments are a******ery, that is insulting. Before I took offence, I asked you to clarify, whose comments do you consider !™£¢*&$&? You tried to say you weren't insulting anyone, and dodged my question, so I assume that my comments (all one of them) are considered by you to be !*(•ª¶¶§∞!.
• 3rd. Now you are claiming you have been insulted. You don't say who did it, or how they insulted it, or what you would like involved parties or uninvolved parties or Grand High Sysops to do about it. Lack of coherence in your "statements" above is beginning to look like a lack of competence. I have assumed good faith and given you the benefit of the doubt for a long time. Admins in charge may not look so favorably upon your behavior in the future. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

ok, never mind, I don't want to drown in this crazy swamp with such mean, toxic sh*t like User:Poeticbent, you can block me, I know you love it. Artinpl (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I am a fool who doesn't remember what he has read, hence the stupid comments I posted above which were unnecessary, borderline-rude, and contrary to WP:BITE. I apologise for my words and actions.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack and lobbying

On List of Iranian dynasties and countries page, I made regulations by making the necessary explanations on the talk page. I explained all the edits I made on the talk page and in the summary of changes. Nevertheless; Without giving any reason, Changes revert by the @LouisAragon:. When I invited him to the talk page.[328] He deleted the message I threw at it. By ignoring the discussion page, Requested page protection and Used disrespectful expressions against me. He does not give any opinion as to whether the changes made are wrong or correct. He's reverted edits and provoking me. When we examined his personal talk page, We see [329] .They warn each other about the change and act together. Please see List of Iranian dynasties and countries: Revision history. Reverted by another user. When we examine their changes and personal talk pages, We see that users move together. This is called lobbying. If you look, you will see that he made no comment about my changes. He's making misleading statements to justify himself.--AlpAy (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I've already fully protected the page—some of the developments I was unaware of can be read on the RFPP report—but I note that an account created today finding ANI, is itself a bit of a mystery wrapped in enigma wrapped in a vest. El_C 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

A vest? EEng 19:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

And a fine vest it is. El_C 20:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Luca Brasi's?

IP: 78.170.159.121 restores a removal by Dengesizzz, 11 June 2016.

User:Dengesizzz is a sockpuppet of EMr KnG.

IP 78.170.159.121, which restored Dengesizzz removal of referenced information, then can be found edit warring since 2 March 2017. Five reverts by my count.

User:AlpAy arrives 5 March 2017‎, and continues the edit warring.

Thus, AlpAy = 78.170.159.121 = Dengesizzz = EMr KnG.

Which explains how a supposed "new user" could find ANI, since EMr KnG has posted on ANI before. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Anyone else think the OP looks a lot like a sock of EMr KnG? It's clearly the same person as 78.165.72.147, and User:LouisAragon accused said IP of beeing someone else here. Sorry if I'm reading the dispute wrong, but a quick glance at the history indicates that the last user to edit-war with LouisAragon on that article was Dengesizzz (talk · contribs), who was clearly also 85.98.149.0 and was blocked as a sock. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:SPI? Kleuske (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Quack. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd just like it noted that I didn't read the previous comments very carefully, and hadn't read Kansas Bear's at all (the odd formatting made my eyes gloss over), before posting the above. I saw the OP's comment and it looked suspicious, so I checked into the history a bit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Range block possibility?

The vandal of @2607:fea8:235f:ff8f:c57b:de0a:9b9e:f4d8: look exactly the same as @2607:fea8:2360:724:b102:a156:4e86:50fb: and @2607:fea8:2360:724:6cc2:15b6:c830:b7cb: (removing "Limited" from the Chinese name of the limited company)

• 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f:c57b:de0a:9b9e:f4d8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2607:fea8:2360:724:b102:a156:4e86:50fb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2607:fea8:2360:724:6cc2:15b6:c830:b7cb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In turn, the edit of aforementioned 2607:FEA8:2360:724:B102:A156:4E86:50FB (talk · contribs · logs) had exactly the same interest as @2607:fea8:2360:724:25c0:62ab:8fe8:89e4: and @2607:fea8:2360:724:51b:eaef:b71c:16ee: back to December (good faith edit but unnecessary American/British English correction). Would the latest vandal by aforementioned 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f:c57b:de0a:9b9e:f4d8 (talk · contribs · logs) qualified for the range block of the whole?

• 2607:fea8:2360:724:25c0:62ab:8fe8:89e4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2607:fea8:2360:724:51b:eaef:b71c:16ee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Matthew_hk tc 09:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Other involved:

2607:FEA8:3C9F:FE1E:210C:2C21:82B2:4E48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

2607:FEA8:3C9F:FE1E:5157:966B:2A58:A5D9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

2607:FEA8:20E0:15F:E4AC:B305:581E:2163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:7DF4:3E98:28C3:CF41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:19FC:1A17:63E0:7C69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:497A:F7A0:ABA7:E00E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Good faith only but tagged by others. Seem same interest with other ip in biology

2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:2524:24AF:7A3E:EC0C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:AC62:152E:706A:65E8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:AD07:4D25:F2CF:D3A6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:E916:D03F:6134:3599 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had 24 hours block before

2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:F03F:6E5F:78AD:BD88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

2607:FEA8:235F:FF8F:F05A:9C30:9EE1:4CD5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

more skipped

most of them either had the same interest in biology and/or airport and most of them involved in unnecessary American/British English correction, and go through the sample suspected ip, 3 of them obviously on Limited Company vandal. Matthew_hk tc 09:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No going to list all the ip in the cat, but recovered few more ips for obvious vandal on removing the word limited

2607:FEA8:2360:724:1DF8:89AB:DE68:CEEA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

2607:FEA8:2360:724:8D52:B87:49D6:A33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

2607:FEA8:2360:724:E938:2EC6:4878:4C1B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Matthew_hk tc 09:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

go through the ip again, those with expired block on single ip and not listed was:

2607:FEA8:2360:632:C57B:DE0A:9B9E:F4D8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Matthew_hk tc 10:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought I remembered something like this showing up here before. It was previously reported here in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Rogers Toronto Date/EngVar Vandal. I range blocked 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f::/64 for a week last time, so this time I'll make it a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)