Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996

Ref desk vandal at it again

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

---

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

Can someone block this IP ASAP? Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the edits should be revdeleted as well. Nearly all are indiscriminate, illiterate allegations of paedophilia. Cabayi (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked, working on revdeletion. Help will be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

All  Done by Lectonar and myself (apologies if I missed someone)--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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

The Rambling Man and DYK

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

---

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) (henceforth TRM) has, for many years, been active at WP:ERRORS and WT:DYK, making comments on issues involving articles that are about to be featured on the main page. For the most part, he has been quite productive on this area, allowing inaccuracies to be sorted out in time.

However, his attitude has been a major issue. Several users, including Gatoclass, have quit the project or have otherwise become inactive over interactions with him. He has also frequently come into conflict with many of the page's other regulars, particularly Vanamonde93. An example is this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 152#Empty queues yet again redux, where he uses the word "dick" in response to a comment made by said user. Another similar interaction was when he called a newer DYK user's hook proposal "clickbait" (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 152#Queue 1 - William G. Blakely hook needs urgent attention). There have been many other similar incidents, but listing them all here would make this overly too long. Following a discussion, TRM ceased posting at WP:ERRORS, but then created a userspace page (see WP:ERRORS2) listing his comments, even claiming it as the "superior" ERRORS page. In addition, although TRM sometimes does fix errors he raises himself, he seems critical of requests to do it more often. He has also reacted negatively to requests to fix DYK hook issues when said hooks are still on the preparation areas (which can be edited by any user, as opposed to the Queue which can only be edited by sysops). Examples of such exchanges include Wikipedia talk:Did you know#No queue loaded and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Queue 4 Prep 4. His attitude has been an issue in the past on-Wiki before: previously, he had resigned from adminship in controversial circumstances, and he is currently under AE sanctions regarding "questioning general competence" of editors.

Although I know that TRM is acting in good faith in his activities, it seems that his actions have become a net negative on the DYK project, and that something may have to be done here for the issues to be resolved. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN for The Rambling Man from WP:DYK and WP:ERRORS

Considering TRM's attitude at WT:DYK and related pages, as well as the existence of WP:ERRORS2 (aka WP:TRM) and the banner of his talk page, I am proposing that TRM be topic-banned from WP:DYK, WP:ERRORS, and related pages broadly constructed, for a period of not less than six months. I believe that he has the right intentions with his actions and edits, but the attitude being expressed on-wiki is becoming counterproductive and has led to too much unnecessary drama. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SOURGRAPES. ——SerialNumber54129 17:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Question - For clarification, when you state "related pages broadly constructed (sic)", are you also proposing that his WP:ERRORS2 page be deprecated as well, given its tangential relation to WP:ERRORS?--WaltCip (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not WP:ERRORS2 would be kept or allowed would be part of this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've already banned myself from ERRORS (mostly) and don't participate at DYK in any capacity other than to ensure queues are loaded. This looks like a huge waste of time. If, of course, the hundreds of errors that I've spotted and which have been resolved in the past few months are unwelcome, that's a different matter. DYK don't own my user space, DYK don't own my time and how I spend it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Basically, it's constuctive what TRM does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. As far as I can tell from this somewhat garbled complaint, your issue isn't that TRM is making any kind of mistakes, but that he's correctly pointing out issues too often? I really don't understand what problem any proposed ban is expected to solve. I'm no great fan of his approach—I think that on his WP:ERRORS2 page he often flags things as 'errors' that are actually just non-compliance with personal preferences—but he's not putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to make changes, just posting suggestions for things he feels ought to be changed. There are quite a few structural problems and problematic regular editors at the DYK project, and TRM is nowhere near the top of either list. ‑ Iridescent 17:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned above here, the issue is not pointing out issues, but the attitude in doing so. He can do what he wants and we can do what we want, it's just that there has been too much drama on WT:DYK lately and it feels like it's going too far. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I have to do what you want when you want? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This doesn’t make sense. He doesn’t post to ERRORS anymore. Are you seriously proposing to ban him from one his own subpages? Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is vindictive. TRM can be prickly but his dedication to accuracy of main page content is useful and productive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The original intention was to discuss WP:ERRORS2 and see what would happen from here. With that said, you do have a point and I have struck WP:ERRORS from the proposal. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So you're explicitly saying you want to ban him from his own userspace? What the hell? We are not going to do that; if you don't like the tone of his userspace why are you watching it? ‑ Iridescent 17:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the opposes above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm certainly not TRM's biggest fan however I fail to see the point of this. Yes his attitude towards DYK and its contributors can be annoying sometimes. However I'm not seeing this quite being a reason to bar him as of yet as he isn't causing widespread disruption. Though I do express a concern that WP:ERRORS2 links to one of his personal subpages simply on the grounds that it implies official WP support/relation to the main ERRORS page. I don't see a need for a tban but I do think that the ERRORS2 redirect should be deleted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Please do note that I didn't create either of WP:TRM or WP:ERRORS2. Just in case people think it's me trying to achieve some kind of formal recognition. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Obvious oppose. I'm not sure I can add anything non-repetitive to what's already been said here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don’t know that a tban is the corect remedy but some of the comments in the initial statement seem pretty clearly to run afoul of the arbcom-placed sanctions on TRM, as logged at WP:RESTRICT, in particular:

”The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.

If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.”

(The restriction goes on to describe how a series of escalating blocks is to be used) I would therefore suggest that WP:AE may be a more appropriate forum for discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm fine with TRM fixing DYK errors, but I think that he could tone down his snippy remarks. Then again, I try to not let these things bug me because Wikipedia isn't my life. SL93 (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  The thing is, I only post to DYK when no queues are loaded, all of the other comments are in my user space, no-one need engage with me ever, I don't ask for, I don't expect it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as per every editor above me, not a chance in hell. –Davey2010^Talk 18:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Nae danger chief. Nick (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Much like the weather here the other day, it seems to be SNOWING. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment2 I think that consensus appears to be fairly anonymous here so I would suggest that this be SNOW closed and suggest that if @Narutolovehinata5: wishes to pursue this, then the above mentioned report to WP:AE would be a better venue for it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess you meant "unanimous"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

...what, do they want a white Christmas there too...?  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 19:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Marjoram Curry

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

---

They have made these edits: [1] [2] [3], which I belive have broken Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I let them know of the reverts on their talk page, and they have claimed censorship. I say there should be a block. Remagoxer (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You really understated your case. Bbb23 blocked Marjoram Curry, and I've revdeled the edits and edit summaries. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:This Binbag

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

---

Per this diff, it's pretty clear that this user has previously interacted with Samf4u. I can't find any obvious candidate, but I think it's clear that some form of admin intervention is needed. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

With further inspection, it looks likely to be WP:LTA/BKFIP. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account blocked, but the claim that this is the BKFIP seems really, really far off the mark. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Maithripala Sirisena & Angajan Ramanathan

Regarding the pages:

• Maithripala Sirisena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) "current President of Sri Lanka"
• Angajan Ramanathan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), "A Sri Lankan Tamil politician and Member of Parliament"

With the Sirisena article, MaithriWiki (talk · contribs) added content which seems to be rather controversial. Not sure if it is DUE.

With the Ramanathan article, I got a WoT message on my talk page by Skishok (talk · contribs), stating I am the Media Secretary to the Hon. Deputy Minister Angajan Ramanathan. and wants the article "cleaned"

Would someone please take a look at these? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I left the secretary a message evoking PAID, COI, and BLP.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Which was promptly followed by the "Media Secretary" restoring their preferred version of the Ramanathan page. Grandpallama (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I have protected the page and left a further message with {{user|MaithriWiki}}Skishok inviting them to discuss here. I do not see anything defamatory in the content removed by MaithriWiki Skishok . Rather his edits introduced peacocky syrupy edits lauding the subject ad nauseum. If someone could have another look to be sure, I'd appreciate it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

syrupy edits lauding the subject ad nauseum – maybe it was syrupy of ipecac. EEng 19:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

See also the conduct by Pmdsrilanka (talk · contribs) at the Maithripala Sirisena. In their edits (last diff), not only did they remove the possibly-undue text about an event from the intro, but they scrubbed anything negative from the article. Given the other editors involved, this feels like it could be another COI account. —C.Fred (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Also note that there are two similarly-named accounts editing the Sirisena article. MaitrhiWiki has added some text, e.g. this edit with summary "Constitutional Crisis - added citations, data. Someone is trying to roll back mentions of the public and parliamentary reactions to this event." MaithriUpdate has been removing said material and adding content that is heavily pro-Sirisena. It looks like the article is in the crosshairs of two groups of editors. It's unclear whether the situation is that one group is adding full coverage and the other is removing all negative mentions, or that groups are pulling the article back-and-forth from overly positive to overly negative. These article could probably benefit from more neutral eyes monitoring the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Pmdsrilanka, we suspect, is the Presidential Media Div. The President has overruled the Constitution (19A), prorogued Parliament and taken control of many of the media institutions of this country. This wiki, and social media, represents one of the few bastions where someone can find cited, unbiased information (and given that Sirisena blocked Facebook in March, 2018, I'm not sure how long social media access might be available to the general public. Please maintain protection and, if you have the time, we would all appreciate an unbiased source vetting content closely. MaithriWiki (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

User Blackknight12 has removed references to the 2018 Constitutional Crisis, as well as a carefully deleting cited references to Maithripala's public disavowal of the 100-day program. The user appears to have mass-deleted large snippets and added them again to make the edit look substantia. Please check C.Fred Ymblanter see revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maithripala_Sirisena&diff=868036621&oldid=867879637 MaithriWiki (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive IPs on NYC-area railroad articles

For about six months now, a series of IPs geolocating to around Ossining, New York and New York City - almost certainly the same editor at home and work - have been making poor-quality changes to railroad-related articles. Most articles are related to Metro-North Railroad and Long Island Rail Road, though some are farther afield. Although some edits they make are correct, most are incorrect, useless, or outright vandalism. They repeatedly soft-revert when their poor edits are reverted, ignore talk page messages, leave no edit summaries, and refuse to discuss on talk pages. The frequently-changing IPs and refusal to engage with the community makes working with this editor impossible. The currently active IP is 69.117.14.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

list of IPs and ranges

Sorted 17 IPv4 addresses: 67.85.54.157 67.87.197.84 68.196.140.27 69.113.130.30 69.113.133.238 69.113.135.58 69.117.12.70 69.117.12.248 69.117.14.113 69.117.14.252 69.117.15.126 69.117.15.179 69.118.168.191 74.88.69.251 74.90.22.232 74.90.23.159 166.109.0.236 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 2057 1 1 67.85.54.157 contribs 1 1 67.87.197.84 contribs 1 1 68.196.140.27 contribs 1 1 69.113.130.30 contribs 1024 2 69.113.132.0/22 contribs 1024 6 69.117.12.0/22 contribs 1 1 69.118.168.191 contribs 1 1 74.88.69.251 contribs 1 1 74.90.22.232 contribs 1 1 74.90.23.159 contribs 1 1 166.109.0.236 contribs 779 1 1 67.85.54.157 contribs 1 1 67.87.197.84 contribs 1 1 68.196.140.27 contribs 1 1 69.113.130.30 contribs 1 1 69.113.133.238 contribs 1 1 69.113.135.58 contribs 256 2 69.117.12.0/24 contribs 512 4 69.117.14.0/23 contribs 1 1 69.118.168.191 contribs 1 1 74.88.69.251 contribs 1 1 74.90.22.232 contribs 1 1 74.90.23.159 contribs 1 1 166.109.0.236 contribs 17 1 1 67.85.54.157 contribs 1 1 67.87.197.84 contribs 1 1 68.196.140.27 contribs 1 1 69.113.130.30 contribs 1 1 69.113.133.238 contribs 1 1 69.113.135.58 contribs 1 1 69.117.12.70 contribs 1 1 69.117.12.248 contribs 1 1 69.117.14.113 contribs 1 1 69.117.14.252 contribs 1 1 69.117.15.126 contribs 1 1 69.117.15.179 contribs 1 1 69.118.168.191 contribs 1 1 74.88.69.251 contribs 1 1 74.90.22.232 contribs 1 1 74.90.23.159 contribs 1 1 166.109.0.236 contribs

Several of the IPs, including 69.117.12.248 and range 69.113.128.0/21, have been given blocks for vandalism at AIV. However, the nature of the edits (the disruptive nature is not always obvious at first glance) and the frequently shifting IPs which make repeated warnings difficult means that sometimes my AIV reports are turned down. I would like to see ranges 69.113.128.0/21 and 69.117.12.0/22 (where the majority of this disruption is coming from) blocked for a longer period, and for other appearances of this disruptive editor to be blocked on site. Pinging @Epicgenius and Cards84664: who have also been involved in dealing with this disruptive editing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Also see the prior SPI reports here. Thank you for compiling this. Cards84664 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the SPI, I don't think these IPs are Conrailman4122 socks (despite the same geographic area) due to their lack of edit summaries, talk page usage, and hard reverts. Meatpuppetry is possible, but this is probably just a separate disruptive editor. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I found a slip-up by the other sock, see this one. They used edit summaries on October 19th and 20th. Both that ip and the latest one above edited Roosevelt Field (shopping mall). Cards84664 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary block caused by Muse (disambiguation) content dispute and User:Jytdog's harrassment

The following discussion is closed. 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 object with edit blocking sanction had been imposed to me through this report. First, I did not violate 3RR (there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3RR to apply while the links User:Jytdog have provided do not meet these criteria) since I only reverted between my edits in more than 24-hour period. Second, I used a logic consideration to make an useful contribution to correct the opening definition of Muse (disambiguation) article {between Muse/singular (as page title) and Muses/plural}, with reasonable arguments {see Talk:Muse (disambiguation)} and following the Wikipedia rule concerning page title and the first sentence. (MOS:FIRST) Third, the arguments from other editors in edit summary in article history are unclear (just by saying "revert," "clearly relevant," etc.) and they are unreasonable statements to support their edit version. Furthermore, until this day, I do not see any response which provides good reason to defend their stance by constructive discussion in the Talk page.

Obviously, I very disappointed with User:EdJohnston as Admin who do not understand this content dispute and ignorantly imposed an excessive five days edit block to an editor who tried to improve an article (while the other users who blatantly break 3RR are usually blocked less than 72 hours). I think it is better for an administrator to make the page temporarily protected (Template:Pp-dispute) or filing this dispute to dispute resolution (WP:DRN) or asking Requests for comment assistance (WP:RFC/All) until a consensus reached in the talk page by considering the severity of my action that I hasn't technically violated WP:3RR or blatant vandalism (There is zero reason for being blocked trying to correct an opening sentence of a disambiguation page). Therefore I hope there is a consideration to evaluate admin status of User:EdJohnston who should have followed the Wikipedia rules carefully and the privilege should not be abused to block a user without much understanding about its (blocking) policy.

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators (WP:BLOCKNO)

— Wikipedia:Blocking policy

I also cannot accept the action (incivility) (WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL) of User:Jytdog who caused this inappropriate sanction by recklessly reported me to ANI/edit-warring without trying to discuss first to seek peaceful solution in talk page (which I suggested in the user talk page) to gain a consensus that would not 'hurt' (block) anybody. Furthermore, he once falsely accused me involved in sockpuppetry case which is unproven. Sock-puppet investigations At last, I hope there would be a proper sanction to User:Jytdog who repeatedly humiliate me (WP:HARASS) (regarding to the hostile report which leads to the edit blocking sanction) in order to make this user becomes more careful to avoid unpleasant way in treating similar dispute case in the future. — MusenInvincible (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2018‎ (UTC)

Actually 3RR says "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.".Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

However I have to add (now having looked, it was 4 edits over 4 days. But do not get too excited "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached." So an admin could well have decided you were edit warring (but had not breached the main definition of 3RR. Now the fact you inserted the same material (without consensus) may not have breach the specific letter of 3RR, but it was disruptive, could be called tendentious editing (see wp:tenditious), and was edit warring, just a very slow one (and this ANI could be ween as WP:LAWYER.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any incivility in looking at the page in question. Edit warring does not require a 3RR violation. If you make allegations you should provide diffs to back it up. I would also advise against making attacks against an admin in an AN/I report. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• None of Jytdog's actions were uncivil; they all comported precisely with policy, including this report an WP:ANEW: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive378#User:MusenInvincible reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked). If you want to have a better experience on Wikipedia, then stop editing disruptively, stop edit-warring, stop making spurious reports at ANI, and take heed of the notices and warnings you get on your talkpage [4]. If not, you'll likely end up blocked again. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow. It's hard to remember a complaint here with as much misapplication of PAG as this unsigned complaint. Metallicat3627, you are required to notify Jytdog on his talk page when you file a complaint here, and every other editor you've mentioned. There is a very large bright orange box in the edit window to remind you of that. You appear to also be claiming a violation of WP:INVOLVED by EdJohnston, but have provided no evidence of how he is involved other than blocking someone. That's not involved. Filing proper complaints, with diffs for evidence, is neither uncivil or harrassment. However, filing a complaint without any evidence as you have here is considered uncivil. Every policy about edit warring clearly states that although breaking 3rr is usually considered edit warring, it isn't necessary to break 3rr to edit war. So really, exactly what are you looking for here? John from Idegon (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, EdJohnston has never edited the dab page in question, it's talk or other than the block notice, the OP's talk. So exactly how does WP:BLOCKNO apply? Several have endorsed the block here. As civility is not as cut and dried, perhaps we could extend some lattitude on that portion of the OP's report (although IMO that too is nothing but butt hurt poor Wikilawyering, something a perusal of the OP's talk shows he is prone to), but I'd suggest if the complaint regarding Ed isn't withdrawn posthaste, the Australian Aboriginal weapon be deployed. It appears we have some serious WP:CIR issues here, as evidenced by the OP's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• @MusenInvincible: Advise withdrawal. Please bear in mind that when one posts here, one's own quirks and foibles and even faults come under consideration and may result in one being blocked. I'm also concerned by the apparent WP:CIR and alphabet soup of problems this thread brings to mind. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• @John from Idegon and Dlohcierekim: The user's name is MusenInvincible, not Metallicat3627. Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  @MusenInvincible: Thanks, Softlavnder.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

My block is what MusenInvincible is challenging here, so this is my side of the story. This was a case of long-term warring by MusenInvincible to change Muse (disambiguation) to refer to 'Muse' rather than 'Muses'. (For example this edit). These reverts did not break 3RR, but they appeared to be a case of long-term warring. They began on 26 October and continued through 2 November. The reasoning behind the five-day block is I think adequately explained by the closure of the AN3 report. I was also influenced by what I saw on the editor's talk page at the time of the complaint, including past warnings by User:NeilN and User:Dougweller. MusenInvincible seemed to have no comprehension why they had been previously blocked for 1RR violation by User:NeilN, suggesting to me that there was little chance MusenInvincible was going to start following policy any time soon. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven If so, should someone who defends his contribution which is an improvement to article against unreasonable arguments be blocked? Is there any Wikipedia policy that tendentious editing wp:tenditious should be blocked? Moreover, If the users have provided clear and reasonable arguments in rejecting my contribution, I would be cease to revert my edit version, however, It is unacceptable that my useful contribution are undermined just by lame arguments in edit summary by saying "revert" or "clearly relevant" without any further explanation. — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not our place to judge the merits of a contribution, only adherence to policy. Now if a user engages in tendentious editing it may well be a case of they should be blocked, but you were not reported for that (and it is your actions under scrutiny). Nor does a users poor behavior warrant edit warring (slowly or quickly, which is what you were blocked for). An appeal to test on "but what about the other guy" is not going to work (and may get you a longer block for wasting admins time with fallacious appeals). I would also point out that under policy it is really down to you to make the case on the articles talk page, an edd is not required to argue his point in the edit summery (that it is best practice).Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@SlaterstevenI don't talk about wp:tenditious, but Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, If you object to involve in this thread, I am sure there's still another editor who want to discuss with me. Sorry if I was wasting your time...(I don't mean to) — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

So was I, you do not have to link to the policy for people to know what you mean, we have all been here long enough to know what " tendentious editing" means.

Nor does it matter what you want to talk about, you are appealing a block, and you do not do that by trying to prove another user should have been blocked. This is about whether or not your block was justified, based upon your behavior. What the other user did is irreverent, two wrongs do not make a right. Now if youi want to launch an ANI about Jydog go ahead (I would advise against it given the comments here, which seem to be saying you are wrong), but it a separate issue form your block.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I am not appealing a block, but I only give several considerations and proofs concerning status of an unaware admin and harassment from another user, would the other administrators consider my review? is up to them. That's my point. — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender Making a false accusation of sockpuppetry (which is an unpleasant charge) and reporting an editor who trying to make a useful contribution in page (which reverted with some unclear arguments) that resulted in a block sanction while there are many better alternatives to solve content dispute such as constructive discussion in talk page (WP:BRD), placing protected page template (until solution found), dispute resolution assistance, request for comments, etc. So, aren't these two (slandering and punitive report) unpleasant or nice (civil) behaviors when you, in my position, were humiliated and you should be blocked 5-day while trying to improve things? — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon If you think I did not notify them in their talk pages about this issue, see this and this. If you said 'without any evidence as you have here' don't you see this. I don't talk about admin who involve in edit war, but I object with his action to impose a block while there are many alternative solutions. Furthermore, WP:BLOCKNO (read it well) apply to several things that prevent administrator to block an user especially in a content dispute, I mean this administrator (EdJohnston) should read and follow this WP:BLOCKNO policy carefully before imposing a sanction, since the blocking is not solving a conflict nor making a good consensus peacefully in a content dispute (or you say an edit war) while other admin can place protected page template in the disputed article to cool down the debate, not block a side in a conflict. — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

MusenInvincible, Jytdog did not make a "false accusation of sockpuppetry"; he filed a sockpuppet investigation, an action which is always is perfectly within policy and reason. Meanwhile, you were edit-warring against consensus across two articles, and you were blocked for that. Unless you come to understand how consensus works and how the status quo ante of an article is the consensus unless you are able to get a majority of others to agree otherwise, then you are not going to last long on Wikipedia, and you will be blocked again very soon for increasingly long periods of time. Right now you are continuing to waste everyone's time with these spurious accusations of an editor and an admin who were both clearly following policy. Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender:Let me ask simple questions, Is his (Jytdog) report to WP:SPI a true or false charge (supported with no evidence)? then, Are you sure with your statement (an editor and an admin who were both clearly(?) following policy)? FYI based on Wikipedia policy, a good editor need to start discussion first to seek consensus (WP:BRD), If there is still no consesus, he may report the case to a noticeboard to solve the dispute. Later, according Wikipedia policy, the administrator may not impose a block to a user involved in a content dispute (When blocking may not be used) (read it well, please?) Third, don't you think that I am clearly following Wikipedia rule while making edits in Muse (disambiguation)? Read MOS:LEADSENTENCE If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence... Lastly, the page title of Muse (disambiguation) page is "Muses" or "Muse"?
P.S. if you do not want to involve in this thread, I am sure there's still another editor who wants to discuss with me. Sorry if I was wasting your time...(I don't mean to) — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@MusenInvincible: any defence you have "trying to make a useful contribution in page (which reverted with some unclear arguments) that resulted in a block sanction while there are many better alternatives to solve content dispute such as constructive discussion in talk page (WP:BRD)" pretty much flies out the window when someone visits the talk page for Talk:Muse (disambiguation) and finds the first post by you was after someone else brought it up after your 5 edits. Since you participated in the talk page discussion and didn't edit war after it begun (albeit you were blocked soon after), perhaps you could make a resonable argument that it's not enough for a block but there were other articles involved and more to the point, no one is going to care that much when you weren't bothering to discuss. Perhaps the other side was at fault at well, but the problem is you're coming here trying to convince us to care, and we're not going to since a simple check shows you completely failed the 3rd part of BRD and further you comments suggest it wasn't a case of ignorance. You knew all about the ways to try and resolve the dispute, but didn't try to avail of any of them, instead you edit warred. While this doesn't excuse any wrongs that any other party may have committed it means we aren't likely to care especially when there are other articles involved too. As I've said many times before, don't come and complain about something when the talk page is empty. (Or in this case only wasn't empty because someone else started to discuss and you finally also started to discuss.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:You may say it is an edit war (but I prefer content dispute), however, how can you warrant that the discussion (Talk:Muse (disambiguation)) had been moving forward (because, until this day, none of the other editors write something in talk page, except Jytdog after I reminded him first following his report) when the other sides were only questioning about wording problem and uncertain statements in edit summary. if the arguments are reasonable enough to be responded, for sure I would have started a discussion in the talk page. In this case, moreover, Jytdog did not follow WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss) but BR'R'D (bold, revert, report, discuss). FYI, I did not know anything about the ways to try and resolve the dispute (WP:BRD), protected page, etc.) before I searched about Wikipedia policies following Jytdog's report. OK, maybe I am a human being who is not perfect that I should be punished when I was wrong, but how with these two users (Jytdog & EdJohnston) with their mistakes, would you let them go away unpunished. I just need a justice here. — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@MusenInvincible: It is both a content dispute and an edit war. If you had simply discussed rather than continuing to try to get your version through without discussion then it would be solely a content dispute, and there would be no need to us to care about it at ANI but you made it an edit war, by edit warring. And you still don't seem to be getting it. As I already said, it could be true that others have done wrong here. I don't really know and don't really care. The fact that you have clearly done wrong by failing to discuss means that IDGAF and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. If you want people to care, behave properly and start a discussion as soon as it's clear there is a content dispute. Don't edit war to try and keep your changes. And no here should want to punish anyone. All we want is to stop misbehaviour which seems to have been successful here since you stopped edit warring, whether or not it was necessary. Whatever others did or did not do wrong, it's clear you did wrong by edit warring through multiple content disputes with I think no attempt to initiate discussion (I checked another case and it seemed to be the same as Muse). Again this does not excuse whatever else others may or may not have done wrong, but since the problem is over anyway, none of us particularly care about whether or not you were slightly hard done by since whatever else you were edit warring and apparently made no attempt to initiate discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW "if the arguments are reasonable enough to be responded, for sure I would have started a discussion in the talk page" - utter bullshit. You're destroying your case the more you speak. With very very very very very limited exceptions, you do have to discuss. It doesn't matter if you think their "arguments are reasonable enough to be responded". If you argument it so sound, you just have to leave a simple statement on the talk page and probably the editor themselves, and definitely anyone else who gets involved will surely see the vast superiority of your argument and be won over. Frankly I have no idea how you knew the other editors argument anyway since there was no discussion until someone else initiated it. Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think @MusenInvincible: now might be a good time to back away slowly, you are on a losing one here. Losing at ANI is not like losing at Monopoly, it can have real consequences (beyond a family argument over you letting mum off her debt).Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Could an administrator either close this endless time-waste, or block MusenInvincible for endless BATTLEGROUND, DE, TE, IDHT, and unfounded wiki-lawyering? Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

From my perspective, all that this person has done in WP is add badly sourced bad content, and bludgeon talk pages (and this board) with bad arguments. Seeing oneself as "invincible" is rarely conducive to what we do here. I had forgotten about the MEAT-aided edit warring this person did at Kafir that led me to file the SPI. Hm. There is no openness with this person to learning what we do, and how we do it. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, what to do? They've already received four warnings from Doug Weller this year: [5], [6], [7], [8]. And they've already been blocked twice this year, most recently for 5 days [9]. I'd say the appropriate current sanction for this heedless BATTLEGROUND thread which the editor seems determined to extend into infinity would be a two-week block. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Let go back to my points, I am just a user who tried as good as I can to prove with several strong arguments and Wikipedia policies that there's something wrong with a blocking sanction over me. Maybe the admin (EdJohnston) had decided the block too hurry following a report without further consideration of blocking user in a content dispute. however, It will be good if there's a kind of warning that could make this admin becomes more careful in treating similar problem in future.
For Jytdog, I think this user is not well adept in 'assuming good faith' policy WP:GOODFAITH and he has 'easy-reporting' behavior, since I checked his record of his numerous reports to ANI which leads to blocking of many users (which also means may discourage many potential users to contribute more in this collaborative project) but if he can go unpunished anyway (after all of my arguments against him above) I just conclude this is not a right place to uphold reasonable arguments with reasonable men.
In brief, I think this thread would go nowhere while all of my strong arguments are entirely abandoned and nothing can be expected for justice here. But I believe this proverb "If someone lets sinners continue their wrongdoings without any objection or rebuke, he is as worse as the sinners." FIN. — MusenInvincible (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

NPA violations over at the Pegasus Awards 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.

---

Could Toddst1 maybe stop attacking me and everyone else who disagrees with him over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegasus Award? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Diffs would be good.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

True. Another good thing would be for Toddst1 and SoV to stop edit warring with each other, and stop removing each other's comments, which would easily lead to a block if done by less well known editors. Probably time for both to disengage for a while; the AFD will last a week.--Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, they would, if editing on this phone wasn't so annoying. trumpy behavior by admin will get us started... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

And I walked away from it two days ago. Todd's the one who's not letting it drop, and going after everyone else who posts. It's not just me who's the target. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Based on the message at Sarek's talk page, Toddst was offended by Sarek's initial comment, which classified Toddst's deletion nomination as "IDONTLIKEIT", and the mutual bad faith accusations sprung up from there, with Toddst calling Sarek a 'troll' and a 'bully', deleting/collapsing/tagging his comments, telling him he's projecting his own bad faith motivations, casting aspersions about him having a COI, telling him to 'act with dignity'. Still, Sarek did poke the bear with the 'keep digging' and the 'rvv' comments. I'm not sure whether there is history between these two, or if they both just overreacted and over-escalated the situation, but that aside, Toddst1, come on, you should know better than to modify other people's comments. Bold policing? Really?  Swarm  talk  00:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Requesting rev deletion of inappropriate image addition by IP

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

---

See [10] here. IP repeatedly added an inappropriate image to the top of the article before being blocked. Had jumped from a previous IP whose revisions have all since been deleted, seen [11] here. Koldcuts (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Fred Bauder moving questions

The following discussion is closed. 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 has been closed while I was writing out a more detailed closing statement, but I will post it here as a summary of everything that is going on, for the record:

• There was little feedback on the original block before things escalated, but it doesn't look like there are significant sentiments that Boing! said Zebedee's initial 24h block for edit warring was inappropriate, though one user did state that they felt the block was inappropriate.
• Fred has been discretionarily desysopped by Maxim for self-unblocking and wheel warring, per IAR. There does not appear to be any objection from the community about this action. Formal and final judgment regarding this matter is, of course, reserved for Arbcom, and their decision is still pending. The case request is currently open, and any users who want to leave feedback for the committee may still comment.
• Fred has been blocked indefinitely by Future Perfect at Sunrise. There is no consensus regarding this block, so it remains a standard block under the discretion of individual administrators. Fut.Perf. has stated that they consider the situation resolved and that they have no objection to an unblock at this point, pending an unblock request from Fred. This has been made clear to Fred.
• There is a "clear consensus" against a proposal to site ban Fred.
• Fred is tentatively disqualified as an Arbitration candidate due to the active block. The decision as to whether he will qualify after being unblocked is up to the Electoral Commission. The Commission is aware of the situation and their decision is pending.

To be sure, no one other than Fred deserves the blame for Fred's poor judgment. As can be seen from the feedback, he was totally in the wrong, and he's now facing the consequences. However, any way you look at this, one of Wikipedia's oldest contributors, earliest administrators, and original Arbitrators, is now desysopped and indef-blocked due to, ultimately, an Arbitration Election dispute gone awry. This is not acceptable. As someone below has pointed out, the community appoints a three-member commission which has the full mandate and authority to decisively resolve disputes related to the elections. Links to "contact the coordinators" are plastered all over election pages. One must reflect on whether any of this would have happened if anyone, at any step of the way, had brought the issue to the Commission for a decisive resolution, as they should have. This should be a lesson for all of us, not just Fred. Any future disputes under the purview of the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections need to go straight to the Commission. I suppose we have forgotten why we have a Commission, but this sure as hell is a good reminder. This particular situation, however, is what it is.  Swarm  talk  02:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is closed. 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:Fred Bauder has been edit warring to remove questions from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder/Questions (and copy them to the talk page instead). Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder/Questions is the correct page for questions, it is where everyone expects to find them and will look for them - he does not own the page and he does not get to decide that questions should be moved elsewhere. After edit warring by Fred and after his ignoring a warning I gave him, I have blocked him for 24 hours for edit warring. I appreciate that, as some of the questions he moved were mine, I was possibly not the best admin to do this. So there's an element of WP:IAR in this, but I'll hand it over to others for judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Good block. Edit-warring on his own arbcom candidacy page is such an obvious competence issue, especially in someone with so much experience on Wikipedia, that I can only assume that (along with what appear to be intentionally stupid answers to the questions) this whole candidacy is someone intentionally trying to martyr themselves rather than someone standing as a candidate in good faith. ‑ Iridescent 15:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: Fred Bauder has unblocked himself. Another obvious competence issue. WP:RFAR next? Bishonen | talk 15:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC).

That's an emergency desysop situation, isn't it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No material has been removed. Lengthy repetitive comments and campaigning by users opposed my candidacy have been moved to the talk page where further comments can be made, and anyone can view them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The block was made by a participant in an edit war. I have the right to have a page to respond to questions that is not cluttered up by campaigning against me. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes; per WP:NEVERUNBLOCK this is straightforward admin abuse. Desysop at minimum and probably a lengthy block (or even siteban) for intentional disruption. ‑ Iridescent 15:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have emailed Arbcom to request temp desysop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• As someone not involved in the edit-war, I've reinstated the 24 hour block. If he unblocks himself again, I'll set the wheels in motion for a full community ban. Fred, do you really want this to be what you're remembered for? ‑ Iridescent 15:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Iridescent, it looks so. ∯WBG^converse 15:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I need to be able to participate in this discussion, at least. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fred Bauder: then you post your response on your talk page and ask for it to be copied across, or request an unblock to participate. Like any normal user. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred do you understand that an Admin should never unblock themselves unless they imposed the block? ~ GB fan 15:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@GB fan: Since he was editing the policy page in question long after the Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves by following this procedure but should absolutely not do so … Self-unblocking is treated extremely seriously by the community and has resulted in several users losing their sysop privileges wording was added to it, yes, he's well aware. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

To add another option to Bellezzasolo/s comment above, Or you request an unblock using the normal process. ~ GB fan 15:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I've re-blocked Fred after his second self-unblock, but made it indef for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Community ban

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

---

In light of the above, and User:Fred Bauder now twice violating a core Wikipedia policy, I propose a formal community ban from Wikipedia and revocation of all advanced user rights. He can apply for unblocking in six months per the WP:Standard offer. ‑ Iridescent 15:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ‑ Iridescent 15:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Clear and obvious abuse of Admin privileges.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Note that several people (at least me and Boing) have also asked arbcom for an emergency desysop. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC).
• Support desysop, ban. Not sure about having a minimum appeal time per NETPOSITIVE. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support That's just not cricket - TNT ^💖 15:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Supporting a desysop and indef block only (not a community ban) - TNT ^💖 17:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Just goes to show you what happens when early era admins continue to have rights that they should never have been permitted to keep. Nihlus 15:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

While this is a good point, the question is: does this isolated offense merit a community ban, or just a timed block and a detooling? Would not the latter course solve the problem? Carrite (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support -- Cluelessness, at it's best and he's past AGF.∯WBG^converse 15:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support for the same reason that Iridescent said. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 15:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Also noting, after looking over a few recent edits in contentious areas made by this user, that the notion that this person was running for a position where he would be judging other people's adherence to the core values of the project was an absurdity all by itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On second thought, retracting support, since I see other commenters' point about a full community ban being overkill. But I'll still keep it on the record that I believe there is not just this one episode of administrative meltdown but also a substantial history of very bad content editing, displaying a deep disconnect with Wikipedia's editing norms (with respect to NPOV writing, NFC etc). This would be just a matter of potential application of DS or other normal sanctions in a normal situation, but with an editor who is at the same time running for Arbcom this is quite deeply concerning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Per mominator; this is behavior unbecoming of an administrator and should not be tolerated. Vermont (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support desysop and community ban. The two self unblocks and rollbacks to edit war are clear misuse of admin tools. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 15:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Iri. Nick (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Give the guy a break, there is clearly a concern but Fred is a good contributor to the wiki and is also a human being, let's support him rather than attack him unnecessarily. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support You don't get a break for wheel warring. Administrator is a position of trust, and wheel warring breaches that trust. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • wheel warring is simply a removal of admin position not needed a community ban, Fred is not a danger to the project.Govindaharihari (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • That would be as clear-cut an example of the Super Mario Problem as one could imagine; what you're effectively saying is that a level of disruption that would get any ordinary editor blocked shouldn't get an admin blocked because admins are somehow more important. Note that Fred Bauder could put a stop to this even now (although he'd probably still lose his legacy sysop bit) just by apologising and agreeing that from now on he's willing to comply with Wikipedia's policies; note also that he hasn't done so. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Iridescent, Fred is a candidate at the elections, that is important imo that he is allowed and assisted to contribute. I am sure if you ask him that moving forward he will comply with Wikipedia's policies. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I think that opportunity has now gone well and truly away. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
          • there are always opportunities to move on Ramblingman [12] Govindaharihari (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I thought the same about Trump at the "Grab her by the pussy" stage ;-( Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Nope, I never ever abused my tools as an admin. Horrible abuse of position. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think the questions asked here were fair, in many cases. Common sense should inform participants that off-base "questions" should be frowned-upon. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Not the issue at all, it's the self-unblock which is desysop-worthy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• That is myopic. Anyone would be rattled by irrelevant and off-base questions and comments. Everyone has their breaking point. An administrator is not superman. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support obvious wheel warring is obvious. zchrykng (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support very poor behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Appears interested only in exercising the latent power granted to him by his vestigial administrator flag, whilst doing none of the actual work administrators are supposed to do. His desires should not be indulged, and his disruption halted. RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What the hell? it seems the above ANI was right, he does appear to just want to abuse power. I am not sure a community ban is needed, but it is clear he should lose any special privileges if he is not capable of abusing themSlatersteven (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - oh, good gods. Unblocking yourself TWICE, after being told you can't do that is ... just... I don't have words. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Simply unbelievable lack of clue by a veteran editor and admin. I'm flabbergasted, really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose One of "the Hardy Boys" that Admins fought so hard to retain, why desysop this one when you didn't desysop the last one? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 16:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Point respectfully taken, but this probably isn't the place to make that point - one thing at a time? - TNT ^💖 16:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Sure, but it stinks that one of the most vociferous supporters of the Hardy Boys is one of the most vociferous desysopers in this thread. Hypocritical much, said Zebedee? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 16:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ooh, Roxy, just when I thought we were friends :-( Hardy did not abuse admin tools. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Who the hell are the Hardy Boys?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I dunno, but the argument makes a lot of sense to me: if one person isn't sanctioned, nobody should be sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: It's (I assume) a reference to this case, in which Boing! said Zebedee also argued that an admin should be desysopped but on that occasion Arbcom declined to do so. (I think Roxy the dog may be misremembering Boing's arguments, given the 'hypocrite' comments above, as Boing argued in favour of desysop in both that case and this.) ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A later issue, I think, in which I argued against sanctions for the same person - no idea where it is on AN/ANI right now, or why it is relevant here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support per all of the above. Iridescent, does something need to be posted at WP:ARC for a formal desysop? TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: Probably won't hurt, but I think this can just be emailed in (as many have done)? - TNT ^💖 16:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• "You are in a queue. You are number 79 in a queue. Please hold. Your message is important to us..." ——SerialNumber54129 16:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Desysopping will be under WP:LEVEL2, so Arbcom will have it in hand already from when they received the email notifications mentioned above. (I assume they're discussing it privately via email, hence the lack of visible activity.) Regarding formal banning and/or removal of other permissions, I'd be inclined to go by the book and leaving this the full 24 hours before getting a 'crat to do the necessary. Yes, it will potentially lead to pile-ons, but since this is a very long-term editor and former arb we're talking about here—and there's a non-negligible chance that he'll agree that in future he won't interpret "ignore all rules" as "do whatever the hell I feel like"—we IMO owe him the courtesy of giving him the chance to post an appeal, rather than just summarily ejecting him. ‑ Iridescent 16:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems fair, it gives him a chance to show he does get it, or the abuse becomes so serious even his supporters will have to admit there is no valid reason for not supporting a community ban. But I think that admins will have to watch what goes on , just in case he does go in for some seriously heavy abusing (such as blocking all access for users he desires to "teach a lesson", AGF went out of the door long before Elvis left).Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I'm stunned we've even got to this point. Incredible failure of judgement here. stwalkerster (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I'm shocked just like everyone else about this. funplussmart (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  On second thought I don't think a complete site ban is necessary, although I definitely do support a desysop and possible action from ArbCom for this blatant wheel warring. funplussmart (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - being around for 15 years and being a former arb doesn't it any less disruptive. Although Fred's contributions to the project over the years should be appreciated, this is where to draw the line. They can always be unblocked once they make a serious commitment to disengage from this behavior, but as for adminship, they'll have to go through the proper channels all over again.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't just get unblocked from a community ban. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Not unless they appeal successfully to the community. I think you meant to say a single admin can't overturn the block without community consensus.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of course he should be de-sysopped, and of course he should be blocked. These would solve the immediate problems. An extended ban is disproportionate. And before anyone mentions Super Mario, we wouldn't ban any other editor for one incident of this behaviour either. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Except it's not a one-off, it's a three-off; the initial edit-warring that got him blocked, the self-unblock, and the wheel-warring over the self-unblock. Per my comments above, I wouldn't be averse to getting rid of the "after six months" clause and allowing him to appeal immediately, but in the absence of any undertaking not to continue being disruptive I don't see any benefit to unblocking. ‑ Iridescent 16:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• It is a single situation a single problem Iridescent, just this arbcom election. Why don't you ask him Iridescent? Govindaharihari (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• comment Please remove this if it's inappropriate for a non-admin to do so, but i'd like to chime in from the perspective of a neuroscientist. People can sometimes reach a state where they get so emotional that they're not thinking rationally. Effectively their prefrontal cortex stops working. This isn't a justification for improper behavior (except for an occasional crime passionel under some laws), but i think it's fair to judge a person on how often he gets into this state and how much was required to trigger it -- not on the number of mistakes he makes upon entering an irrational state. That's the best predictor for future behavior. Once in such a state, rational arguments such as policies become irrelevant. However, the ability for a person to recognize such a state, or accept it when other people signal it and take a break accordingly is also a predictor for future behavior. Again, my apologies if inappropriate for a non-admin to chime in.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (multiple ec). I see the rationale for removing advanced permissions - and I am sure ArbCom will have a due consideration of the issue - but I do not see a reason for community ban. A community ban is supposed to prevent very serious, long-standing issues. What issues does the community want to prevent here? Edit-warring? Usually we block users who are edit-warring, not community ban them. Fred Bauder has never been blocked before (except for self-imposed blocks), and I do not yet see any evidence that this is a recurring problem, so once the advanced permissions are gone I do not see any reason for the block or ban. Or just make it 24h block to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• We generally do not community-ban people for one ill-conceived session of edit-warring. But a day- or week-long block is fine to stop the disruption. Obviously he should be desysoped for the wheel-warring and self-unblocking, as I'm sure he soon will be. 28bytes (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's not the edit-warring, it's the self-unblock and the wheel warring that followed the edit warring. The lack of clue is so egregious that a CBAN is a legitimate response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, the lack of clue displayed is certainly egregious, I agree, and the self-unblocks and wheel-warring certainly warrant a desysopping. But if he's managed to edit (relatively) cluefully for over a decade and has one flip-out during what's certainly a stressful ArbCom run in which people are bringing his real-life failings into wider public view, maybe let's not jump straight to a full-on ban, and see if he's able to get himself sorted once this episode has passed. 28bytes (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Interestingly (or not), it is not the questions related to his real-life issues that he moved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• 28bytes, cluefully? Certainly.............. ∯WBG^converse 18:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• If your point is that his Trump-related edits were also bad, I will readily agree with you. But while we're on the topic of bad edits, I'm curious why you chose to edit-war with Fred, using the rollback tool and no edit summaries. That is not a legitimate use of the rollback tool. 28bytes (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose a community ban; I support a de-sysop and a short block. If the behavior continues after a block expires, I would support this action. This isn't a Super Mario situation; we wouldn't indef a non-admin for edit-warring on their ARBCOM candidacy page. The self-unblocking is stupid and justifies a de-sysop but nothing more. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• More power means more responsibility means harsher sanctions. Regular editors haven't been vetted by the community as trusted users. The community ban is a perfectly reasonable response to an admin unblocking themselves twice, the second time after being specifically told that the first self-unblock was in violation of policy. So while these actions all occurred at around roughly the same time, they also occurred under different circumstances, and therefore treating them as a series of violations instead of one big one is a legitimate community response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support, though it truly is sad to see an otherwise well-respected admin and former ARBCOM self-destruct in this manner.--WaltCip (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he won't be able to wheel war when he is desysopped. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Topic ban from arbcomship. I have no comfort in him being elected. wumbolo ^^^ 17:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Probably the only way to do that is to community ban him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Why? @Beyond My Ken: ——SerialNumber54129 17:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just a gut feeling that attempting a "topic ban from ArbCom" wouldn't fly, and might not even be in the community's purview to impose. It seems more likely to be ArbCom or WMF territory. I could certainly be wrong, thought, hence "probably" and not a firm statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• That depends on what you mean by "a topic ban from ArbCom":

• The community cannot topic ban someone from standing for arbcom other than adjusting the requirements for candidacy such that they do not qualify. There is no opportunity to do that until next year. This has no impact on whether someone is elected - every eligible elector is able to oppose any candidate for any or no reason.
• The community could topic ban Fred (or anyone else) from commenting on Arbitration committee proceedings in which they are not a party and/or from initiating such proceedings (or a subset of these). Whether a given edit was a violation of such a ban though would need to be determined by arbcom or the clerks and only they could remove any such comments (excluding BLP vios and obvious vandalism). Any further action would be for the community to determine though unless the committee passed a motion/made a temporary injunction.
• In theory a complete ban from commenting on arbcom proceedings could be applied, but given that participating in dispute resolution in which you are a party is permitted by WP:BANEX it would in practice be no different to the above. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly admonish Boing for edit warring, violating Wikipedia:Edit warring#Administrator guidance (WP:INVOLVED) and Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. Dangerously close to another desysop. wumbolo ^^^ 17:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any ban. This was clearly a stress situation. Indef for this is way over the top. Unless there is past history of continued problems/disruptions to the project, people should not be banned. Such a Ban is just loss for the project. He should be unblocked upon a successful appeal even if it has been made few minutes later. Support : The Advanced rights can be removed for obvious and blatant misuse. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• shame it's a shame that this over the top community ban was proposed by user Iridescent and embarrasing that it has pile on support. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be more ashamed at your ad hominem arguments towards people voting in support of the community ban.--WaltCip (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@WaltCip: FYI, but your link theer is to a comment by BMK (and not an ad hom), and, likewise, looking at Govindaharihari's five posts to this thread, I see no ad hominena at all. Clarify? ——SerialNumber54129 17:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I had meant to link this diff. I saw what I believed to be ad hominem in using an editor's own block log as an argument against said editor proposing a community ban on the admin in question. That is not relevant to the behavior at hand.--WaltCip (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@WaltCip: I see what you mean! Funnily enough, I read it the opposite way—as G. trying to show how TRM had moved on from all the trouble. It certainly shows how dangerous it is making links to things without explaining them properly! ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is acting like a twat on the "you really should show why you are one of the best of the best" forums. It may have been a one off, asking to become a judge whilst being filmed selling drugs is not a good way to keep your job as a Lawyer. Its about the apparent contempt for us, not just policy. An appearance he has made no real effort to change.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support desysop; Oppose community ban; Support a shorter block; Support topic ban from Arbcom Election. Clearly the wheel warring is a problem, and Fred shouldn't be allowed to run for ARBCOM. I feel that this should be treated as a single instance of edit warring (it's a pattern) and we don't ban people for that, or we shouldn't.--Jorm (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. This violates the principle that blocks should be moderate and escalating, leaping all the way to the death penalty. He should, however, immediately be de-tooled for unblocking himself and wheel-warring. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose While behavior unbecoming of an admin and potential arb is evident, this was clearly a very upsetting situation. A sanction/desysop yes, a community ban, why?(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC))
• Comment. Removal of sysop access is a prerogative of Arbitration Committee. Ruslik_Zero 17:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• And Question: what the heck was information about this person's personal life being dragged out and aired at an ArbCom election? Why is that not being addressed (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC))

• Oppose Per WP:OVERREACT. Seriously, desyop will stop the problem and even a long or indefinite block can be good. But site banning is for people who have been causing problems for an extended period of time. Heck, maybe Arbcom is the way to go here but a site ban this fast over what happened doesn't feel right. JC7V-talk 17:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We desysop for wheel-warring. We block for edit warring. We don't (or shouldn't) ban people for one or two incidents of edit warring. He should obviously be desysopped, but there is absolutely no justification for a indefinite ban, and there is no particular necessity for not allowing regular unblock appeals but instead requiring community consensus before unblocking. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban Support, if it was a new editor they'd have been WP:NOTHEREd. Reduce the block to 2-3 days. Flooded with them hundreds 17:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but, you see, it's not a new editor -- it is a 16-year veteran -- and there is ample evidence that he IS HERE to improve the encyclopedia, missteps of judgment notwithstanding. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC) P.S. Flooded with them hundreds, the motion is for a community ban, so "reducing the block to 2 or 3 days" is nonsensical. Clarification needed. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

My bad, I misread the proposal, I thought it was to desysop them. Flooded with them hundreds 17:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, they might; or they might just get 24 house at WP:ANEW for a short edit war. Flooded, how can you both support the site ban and call for a reduction to a couple of days :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I misread the proposal! The block/site ban is punitive and not preventative. Therefore, I support desysoping but oppose a lengthy block. Flooded with them hundreds 17:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Flooded with them hundreds: Thanks for clarifying! No problem at all there. ——SerialNumber54129 17:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This is actually not a good argument. We can always take an isolated incident of bad behavior of any editor - edit-warring, POV pushing, incivility etc - and say that if it were a new editor they would have a chance to be blocked per NOTHERE. This would mean any bad behavior must immediately result in a community ban, which is not our current practice.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The self-unblock and wheel warring were offenses in his capacity as an administrator and the desysop takes care of those. This leaves the original edit warring as the sole offense as an editor. An indef is disproportionate for a first-offense edit warring block. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any form of ban. A proper cool down block, and the desysop is for ArbCom to decide (open a case if you feel so inclined). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Removal of advanced permissions is obviously in order. An block is obviously in order. A site ban is an overreaction. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any ban. It's a crying shame to see all the drama here. So much grief could have been avoided by asking the three-member Electoral Commission to intervene. Isn't it their job to moderate the Q&A boards? There is a precedent for moving stuff to the talk page, set at requests for adminship. Taking this issue here is bypassing the Electoral Commission's authority. wbm1058 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • absolutely - yes it is . Govindaharihari (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• I will note that if he unblocks himself again, that is clear grounds for emergency desysop by steward. It could be argued that a steward could have done so already even though his last self-unblock was 2 hours ago. Of course, ArbCom can order a desysop too, though it is surprising they have not done so already. --Rschen7754 17:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• On retrospection (as to my own !vote), a CBAN might be construed as too harsh and violative of practices of gradual escalation but, at the very minimum, along with a de-flagging, he seems to be in dire need of a TBan from APOL, as the discussed edits at the ArbCom Q-page and his own t/p suggests.......

Carrite mentions notwithstanding missteps of judgement.But, there is a continued series of mis-judgements and he is yet to show a sign of self-correcting them.

IMHO, we have a serious problem with an editor who brushes off any concerns about his editing with some IDHT tactics, coupled with a cranky behaviour. And, that I've a hard time in believing that he is not indulging in intentional stupidity. We are talking about someone who is entirely clueless about a host of policies including EDITWAR, BLP, NPOV and that which governs sysop-actions.

He might have done good work, at some point of time but that has ceased for long and at this very moment, his disruption far exceeds the benefits of his presence to the community.

And, if this proposal fails to pass, I would still oppose any unilateral unblock unless Fred explicitly agrees to abide by the current policies of the site; not his noble interpretations of them.∯WBG^converse 17:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Wheel warring over self-unblocking is absolutely beyond the pale. He is not competent to edit here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban (while supporting desysop and block). Per DBigXray, Carrite, Dirk Beetstra, Wbm1058, et al. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. A site ban, for a bonehead heat-of-the-moment move? Nah. This will clearly lead to a desysopping, but a site ban presumes he's of not contributory value to the community as an editor (or at least that any such positive contributions would be outweighed by a pattern of disruption unlikely to stop, which isn't actually in evidence here).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. I support desysop for the blatant wheel warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - From my reading of this, there's no consensus for a community ban, but it seems clear that there is a consensus for a desysop. WaltCip (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Seconded; that's very much my assessment too. ——SerialNumber54129 18:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• WaltCip, Serial Number 54129, except that the community can't de-sysop? Isn't it? ∯WBG^converse 18:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What's happening here is the estabishment of a consensus: the community decides what is to be done, and then whomsoever it is necessary to ask (somebody, anybody, nobody) will action the consensus. It would be odd if the commnunity was to only have the authority to come to conclusions it had the authority to finish off. They don't call functionaries functionaries for nothing; they exist to function on our behalf. ——SerialNumber54129 18:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. ∯WBG^converse 18:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever, Winged Blades of Godric; on a lighter note, I see Ivanvector recommends you be immediately banned, just down there. Now, where's my "Start new thread" pen... ;) :p ——SerialNumber54129 18:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:LEVEL1 calls for an emergency desysop for an account intentionally abusing the tools, but provides for automatic restoration of the bit if the user comes up with a reasonable explanation and unless there is strong objection from the community. This thread is the strong objection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The flagrant disregard to policies here is astounding and them unblocking themselves twice is astounding too .... but I feel community banning them is a tad over-dramatic, They need desysopping (if that's not already happened) but banning them IMHO is OTT> –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose ban (edit conflict × all of them) (note that a block in this context is a ban; all those "supporting a block but not a ban" are making a circular argument). Unblocking yourself is a bright-line desysop offence and I assume that Arbcom is already pushing the appropriate buttons to effect that per WP:LEVEL1, but unless we're talking about banning Boing! said Zebedee who was also perpetuating the edit war and Winged Blades of Godric who started it, there's no case for banning one of the involved users but not the others. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, you do seem to have a peculiar sense of equivalency, appreciated:-) ∯WBG^converse 18:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah I'm more concerned really (since people seem to be completely ignoring it and the Fred Bauder issue is really already resolved with a desysop imminent) about WBG misusing rollback to edit war and Boing! for edit warring and then blocking the person they were edit warring against (pretty bright line WP:INVOLVED violation with no particular necessity of IARing) - that merits a trout for both at-least. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Just to be clear as mud, I wasn't calling for sanctions. I meant to call to attention the absurdity of community banning an editor for getting into a silly edit war one time, and edit warring over where to put questions to an arbcom candidate is one of the silliest edit wars I've ever come across. This really seems to have been inside baseball, procedure for the sake of procedure. Folks get into one-off edit wars all the time against (I assume) their own better judgement, but they don't get community banned for it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I'm not calling for sanctions either; just that we shouldn't completely ignore misbehaviour just because it is overshadowed by much more egregious misbehaviour (IMO letting things slide without any comment makes it seem valid under policy thus making new admins/rollbackers/editors think it is perfectly valid to do such behaviour). I have to agree on it being a very silly edit war. Doing 6 reverts in 6 minutes is completely unnecessary escalation of something that could've easily been hashed out on a talk page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Understood. I endorse the block for edit warring, fwiw. Wheel warring is sanctionable by desysopping, which should be inevitable at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  I get that:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Galobtter, I understand that using rollback was not optimal but I am very willing to use it liberally, in dealing with extreme stupidity; which this was.∯WBG^converse 19:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  So it's going to be WP:IDHT from you, unfortunately. I hoped for more than that. wumbolo ^^^ 19:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'n not sure about an indefinite community ban but some sort of substantial block is called for. We do usually extend blocks if the blocked editor does something to compound the block, and wheel warring to unblock yourself (and carry on the edit war) absolutely meets that. Hut 8.5 18:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• If there were a pithy name for the opposite of the Super Mario effect, this would be a perfect example of it. A ban is grossly disproportionate for a brief edit war on a non-content page. And however low an opinion you have of the arbitration committee, they can probably figure out whether to desysop someone for unblocking himself without this much kibitzing. —Cryptic 18:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Maxim has desysopped [13]. Now; how about reducing it to time served and all getting on with something else...? ...at the risk of sounding like Ritchie333 there :D ——SerialNumber54129 19:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• (+1) Wot SN sez. Fred has lost his bit and stays indeffed. Surely, there's no consensus to CBan (or any other amendments to his current scenario) and hence, let's wrap this up.......sometimes I feel that Ritchie is the most rational person on the wiki.......∯WBG^converse 19:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I thought that was Drmies  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 19:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose a desysop is necessary, but a complete ban is excessive. The Super Mario principle doesn't really apply here because a non-admin would not be able to unblock themselves. While I'm not trying to single anyone out, I'm mildly disappointed that this proposal gained so much early support. Sometimes we can get a little carried away. Lepricavark (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support desysop and some sort of block. Undecided on ban. My impression of Fred's POV on all this is that he believes different rules apply to him than everyone else. I don't think this attitude is compatible with editing wikipedia. However the incident itself possibly not banworthy per se. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - A site ban is not a proportionate remedy. Of course the desysop was necessary and a block is reasonable until calmer heads prevail.- MrX 🖋
• Oppose per others. Correctly desysopped and correctly blocked to prevent any further disruption. But an indefinite ban? Nope. The dust is still settling. Let’s wait a while to see his response. Aiken D 20:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose a site ban, which is an excessive inappropriate measure for a productive Wikipedian whose misdoings primarily relate to admin actions. Even the wheel warring was not that bad. It was not like he was on a block rampage, although I do appreciate we need to hold admins to a high standard and can understand why editors support a dysop, even though I weakly oppose a dysopp. I feel that a short-term block and admonishment for wheel warring as a final warning of sorts is preferable.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Question Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018: "An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who: ... is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans." If there is no site ban of any kind, then Fred still eligible to stand as a candidate, correct? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• It probably goes without saying that he would not be successful and should probably withdraw per WP:SNOW. Aiken D 20:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• He is subject to an active block, so that might at least temporarily disqualify him. Lepricavark (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Aiken D, not necessarily; there have certainly been candidates in the past who have just come off the back of sanctioning or desysopping and have stood on a "vote for me if you disagree with the way I was treated" platform. None of them have ever won, although Giano II in 2007 and The Rambling Man last year both got respectable levels of support. Per the first comment in this thread I obviously feel Fred Bauder should be blocked or banned, which would render the point irrelevant, but if he's not under any kind of sanction he's perfectly within his rights to stand. ‑ Iridescent 20:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as severe overkill. A desysopping (and removal of all other user rights except either auto or extended confirmed) is sufficient here. There is such as thing as WP:NOPUNISH, and it is part of the blocking policy. I had attempted to leave a comment about their fitness as an administrator a few days ago when I saw Ceoil's report, but it was closed before I could hit post. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose yes, an admin self-unblocking is scandalous, and, yes, it crosses the brightline for desysopping, but desysopping, on top of the original block for edit warring (his first ever), is sanction enough here. A CBAN would be a massive overcorrection. The disruption and damage done to the project was minimal.  Swarm  talk  20:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - the guy flipped out, that's all. Behind every editor is a human being with emotions. A one month-block will cool him down. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Iridescent, you should withdraw this proposal as ill thought and ill timed. It hasn't got a chance of producing anything remotely beneficial to the project and I can not believe you would initiate such an off-topic discussion as this. Of course he should not be banned for this, and of course you know it damn well to be so.--John Cline (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Er, no; that you disagree with something doesn't automatically mean that you're right and everyone supporting it is wrong. I have absolutely no patience for people who attempt to play the "the rules don't apply to me because I'm so damn important" card on Wikipedia, and the more I look into the history here the more, similar, problems I'm seeing. ‑ Iridescent 21:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Er yes, can't you see the feedback from the community here, your patience in irrelevent. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Govindaharihari:, just stop. You're not doing Fred Bauder any good, and every comment you make edges closer to WP:NPA territory. You have a point of view on this matter, and you've made it more than clear to everyone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Desysop is required and the restoration of the block. But a ban appears to be a case of overreaction to me. All these events (edit and wheel warring) unfolded in a very short time frame. This is serious but no longterm kind of disruption which requires a ban. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Two unblocks of himself is just too much....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support totally unbecoming behaviour, Huldra (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

---

Desysop

I have desysoped Fred per WP:IAR for now. I will post a note at WP:A/R about this too. In an nutshell, my reasoning is that it is a Sunday so it's unclear when Arbcom would even pass a desysop motion, and it is not unreasonable to think that Fred would unblock himself again. Maxim_(talk) 19:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Maxim. I can speak from experience that it would take weeks if not months for this commitee to agree on emergency desysop, which is obviously unrealistic in this case. Now that this is out of the way what's remaining should probably be discussion for process and aftermath. Alex Shih (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly ArbCom has an unusual definition of "emergency". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Whoa, Alex Shih--not the ArbCom that I know, which was very quick to desysop two admins, just before my time. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

As a candidate in the arbcom election can we please now allow him to participate. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Er..no. Not only is there no hecking way he's getting elected to AC, the block should stand. - TNT ^💖 20:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Turns out he's disqualified anyway - TNT ^💖 21:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Why is that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• To stand for ArbCom you must be "in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans" (WP:ACE2018/C). Hut 8.5 21:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• He has lost his tools... for now anyway. That solved the unblocking himself stupidity. He will not be edit warring anymore (or he will be reblocked). So the block needs to be lifted so he can participate in this discussion and the ArbComm case and the election process. Guy has a right to defend himself. Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as he's likely going to be brought before Arbcom, it's fair that he be unblocked so as to give his side of the story, etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Why can't he do that like every other blocked editor - respond to talk page, copied to appropriate venue? - TNT ^💖 21:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

All editors are equal, some are more equal than others. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

He can't because he's indef banned. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

He's not in any fashion "banned", right now he's indef blocked. You're participating in a high-level discussion about Wikipedia policy and admin/editor behavior, please get your terms right or stop commenting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't be rude. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right, that was rude, Stricken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: He can still edit his user talk page, and I seriously doubt that'll need to be revoked any time soon - the length of the block doesn't have anything to do with that - TNT ^💖 21:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You sank your arbcomship!

-EEng (inspired by TRM)

• If Fred Bauder is brought before ArbCom for a formal hearing, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to unblock him for that purpose only. Any other edits of any kind would then be met with an automatic re-block. This is very frequently done for editors of all types not only for ArbCom, but for AE, ANI and AN. Fair is fair.
  In the meantime, though, I see no reason for him to be unblocked. There is no inherent right to run for ArbCom (or indeed to edit Wikipedia), and in all practical real-world terms, his candidacy is dead in the water anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, indeed. Given the display I've seen, I don't see my self re-instating his nomination. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

He's already the subject of an ArbComm case. Legacypac (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

As the admin who last reinstated Fred's block and increased it to indef, I'll just say here that of course I won't object to a regular unblocking now that the situation has more or less been resolved. Personally I might tend to wait to see an actual unblock request first, but if and when other admins are satisfied there's no further need for it, feel free to go ahead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Probably best at this point to wait for the unblock request...I'd hate to unblock someone while they're still in the heat of the moment and have them run off and get themselves blocked again. ~Awilley (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no compelling reason to unblock without so much as a word from Fred requesting it. Arbcom is obviously going to uphold and codify the desysop, the basically have no choice. If Fred wants to state anything there’s no problem copy/pasting it on his behalf even if he is blocked. Something about his behavior in this sordid affair suggests to me he may just walk away, unless and until he indicates he wishes to be unblocked I believe the status quo should stand given the apparent consensus above. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• As a final procedural point of order, the matter of Fred's eligibility to run for ArbCom will be decided by the Electoral Commission, which is specifically authorized by the community to handle these kinds of situations. Their final decision is still pending.  Swarm  talk  23:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

User:Weeb Dingle and accusations of WP:Hounding

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

---

As a number of editors know, I edit and watch a lot of sexual topic articles (among other type of articles). In July 2017, Weeb Dingle posted an "I say delete it" section to Talk:Extramarital sex. I think I didn't notice at the time, but I noticed when he added on to the section on April 22, 2018, and I replied. The discussion eventually became heated, to the point that Weeb Dingle began accusing me of stalking him to articles. The stalking claims are seen here, here, here and here (all on the same day -- May 13, 2018). I stated, "I am not stalking you. You are popping up at a number of articles that are on my watchlist, which is indicated by the fact that I have edited enough of them or their talk pages before you even showed up at them. But if you want to report me for WP:Hounding at WP:ANI, be my guest." After more of the same in July (seen here and here) and completely fed up, I told him, in part, "Do not speak to me about civility and targeted harassment when you are going on with idiotic, uncivil and harassing claims, such as 'Setting aside the creepy behavior.' and are now accusing me of having sockpuppets because, like others, you apparently can't read my block log appropriately. If anyone should be taken to WP:ANI right now, it's you. [...] Do stop responding to me with nonsense. WP:OR and uncivil, harassing nonsense will not be tolerated. If you edit appropriately and stop the WP:Personal attacks, there is no issue." After more discussion at Talk:Romance (love), he made the stalking and/or "targeted" claim again (in September) and yet again (most recently). My most recent response is seen here, where I also pinged Drmies for a possible intervention. I've repeatedly told Weeb Dingle (for example, here) that "All of these articles [he's] showing up to, where I appear, are articles that are already on my watchlist; I have been at these articles long before [he] arrived, which is easy enough to check by clicking on the 'Edits by user' link, entering my name, and then pressing 'Submit.' " I told him that I am likely to revert and/or correct his poor edits if they are poor. I've told him that reverting and/or correcting edits is something I am likely to do at any article I am watching.

When I weigh in on an article matter that Weeb Dingle has posted to, I do not want to be attacked by Weeb Dingle because I reverted him at some other article or criticized his edit(s) or rationale. I want the stalking accusations to stop. Dating is on my watchlist too. Because I know how Weeb Dingle will react to me at an article I weigh in at, I thought twice about commenting in the "Dating among children impossible?" discussion there. Tomwsulcer was in an argument with Weeb Dingle. As seen there, I eventually weighed in and felt the need to state to Weeb Dingle, "And before you again claim that I am stalking you, I am not. This is just one of the many articles on my huge watchlist." This is the type of thing I'm dealing with at any article Weeb Dingle pops up that I happen to be watching. Even the Weasel word article that he's recently posted at was on my watchlist until earlier this year when I cut it since I am always looking to cut an article from my gigantic watchlist. If I were to comment there, you can bet that there would be more stalking claims from Weeb Dingle. I'm not asking that Weeb Dingle be blocked, but I am asking for the stalking claims to stop. For those interested, the Editor Interaction Analyzer shows articles where our edits have intersected. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

My quickie guess is that Flyer is reasonable. I follow Dating and Weeb Dingle became argumentative when all I said was he'd need sources to back up additions about the subject of children dating.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Uncivil comments and edit summaries from 86.178.176.182

Diffs: [14] [15]. I have requested SBA Airlines to be semi-protected to avoid further disruption from this IP.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Range 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.

---

Repeated addition of unsourced content - I've encountered a bunch of sequential IPs all editing the same topics over the last hour or so...

• 62.149.77.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.149.77.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Is a rangeblock possible? GiantSnowman 11:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked 62.149.77.128/27 for 2 weeks. Let me know if this hasn't solved the problem. -- Longhair\^talk 11:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out. GiantSnowman 12:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

IP Block by me

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

---

Please see my talk page: 87.254.67.90 Tbhotch/EN is protesting an indef block I made to an IP. The blocked involved repeated uploads of pornographic images. If any admin here believes I have erred, they have my blessing to change the block. I personally feel that the IP was given instructions on how to appeal the block, but you all work it out. — Maile (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd happily block them from now 'til Kingdom Come, if I thought it would help, but this is the Manx sicko who changes IP at will, so the indef is kind of pointless. Favonian (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Blocking everything and then waiting for unblock appeals is a loss of both editors and admin time. This is a very dynamic IP, it is also range blocked for a month, and the vandal is already using new IP addresses in another country. To save me or another admin having to unblock this address due to unnecessary collateral in a few months, please consider unblocking. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your input. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Albertpda decimating Vietnamese football teams articles again

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

---

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

Already blocked once for this, he's back at it. Could an admin just indef this VOA already and be done with it? Some of the articles probably also need semi-protecting because he's apparently socking and IP-hopping as well. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

See also this thread on Drmies' talkpage: User talk:Drmies#What is your authority?. And this Trollerei (that's a German word, hence capitalization and spelling): Talk:Vietnam national football team#Unnecessary sections and tablets must be removed. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruption by Dudeskin8

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

---

• Dudeskin8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps making anti-Islam POV edits to various pages. This user was given a final warning and an ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions notification but continues their behavior. Requesting a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Aboubacarkhoraa

• Aboubacarkhoraa (talk · contribs)

Aboubacarkhoraa has been approached a couple of times on their talk page about their contributions in French. Their replies have always been agreeable and co-operative, but again, in French. WP:CIR. Je suis at a loss que faire. Cabayi (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Cabayi, please at the very least place the {{user|}} template at the top so that people can click to the user's contributions and talk page. You've offered no proof of anything, no diffs, no link to the user at all, nothing. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) done. Cabayi (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I asked for {{user|}}, so people can click to the user's contributions and talk page. Since that wasn't done, I'll do it myself. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to help the user a little bit and then left a note on his user talk; he has more edits on fr. than here, and some deleted articles over there, and may be a little confused. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info, adding unsourced info, and victim blaming on Alexandra Waterbury

2604:2000:12C1:845B:350F:DA6B:571F:9A5B has made continuous edits on Alexandra Waterbury that are disruptive to the article ([16]). We have engaged on the article's talk page but I am having trouble communicating with them and would like some assistance, as I believe they are newer to Wikipedia. I need some help in resolving the ongoing dispute, as I do not feel I can properly explain Wikipedia policies on disruptive editing, credible sources, etc.. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

zh-lta, cross-wiki abuser Zhu Ming (10RR already)

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

---

• 222.69.191.205 (talk · contribs)
• Mingzhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mingju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Zhu Ming (thinker)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wirterss/Archive

I already posted in SPI, AIV and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but it seem so urgent i have to start a thread here

the zh-wiki lta keep spamming himself Zhu Ming to zh-wiki, despite he may pass GNG, but his promotional tone made him blocked in zh-wiki, the article title for him was SALTED, but he was very active to spam himself to en-wiki and wikiquote and somewhere else. Recently he discovered the article title Ming Zhu had been unprotected , so he return again. After the title was protected again, he start to vandalize Mingzhu and Mingju. Matthew hk (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by GeneralizationsAreBad--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

And they also protected both articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

POV-pushing on Suicide and Talk:Suicide

An editor with a dynamic IP address (most recently editing the page as User:2600:1700:8680:E900:8C6F:CAC6:D0E0:A9EB) has been posting long screeds on the suicide article talk page and edit-warring over usage of the WP:MEDRS tag on the page. They don't appear to have been editing the article itself, but instead repeatedly post large rants on the talk page, demanding that suicide be discussed purely as a matter of human free will and not as a medial problem in any manner. This user started an RFC about this issue, and the consensus was that the article's presentation of suicide as a public health problem is a largely accurate reflection of how sources discuss the topic, but they have continued their same behavior.

[17] - removing the MEDRS section from the talk page once [18] - second time [19] - third time

Just look in any section of the talk page to see what I mean about the rants.

Note: I'm not really sure how to notify an editor on a changing IP address. I'll post a notice to the talk page of the IP address linked above, since that seems to be the most recent one they've posted from. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sysop assistance requested: Talk page of User:2600:1700:8680:E900:8C6F:CAC6:D0E0:A9EB is blacklisted; content is at the user page instead and needs to be moved to the talk page. Home Lander (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, did I post that on the user page instead of the talk page? Sorry, my mistake. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon could you have created that message on the talk page since it was black listed. I doubt it. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for disruptive editing, IDHT behavior, refusal to accept consensus and edit-warring against it.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've changed that to three months to match Bbb23's block duration here. I think block evasion may possibly be thrown on the heap now. My block is a hardblock.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Improper page moves

ChupaCol123 has been monkeying around with pages about Sky (United Kingdom), Sky UK and Sky Limited, using cut and paste moves to change article titles to his liking. Whether or not the moves are legitimate (they have not been discussed anywhere), the use of cut-and-paste moves needs to be sorted out. Given the amount of cutting, pasting and changed redirects, it will take an admin to sort this out. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ChupaCol123 (talk · contribs) - Sky (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Sky UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Sky Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Just adding some links to make checking on these a bit easier. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: ChupaCol123 has been blocked as a sock. Can an admin take on the task of cleaning up this particular mess of page moves? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves can usually be reverted normally, like any other edit. The big headache is when the two articles (original and pasted one) have divergent histories. That's when you have to do a history merge. Luckily, it doesn't look like that's necessary, and someone seems to have reverted these edits already. If there's still cleanup necessary, feel free to point it out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive paid editor

Shrav81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is disrupting the project with their attempts to create an article for their client. Shrav81 is a properly disclosed paid editor per WP:PAID, but their first attempt to create an article for Q-tickets ended in deletion (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q-tickets), and they recently submitted two separate drafts of their client's article (Draft:Q-tickets and Draft:Q-Tickets) through WP:AFC, without success. I took note of Shrav's editing after I noticed that the article I was reviewing (Draft:Q-Tickets) was practically identical to another draft (Draft:Q-tickets) that was declined the day before. I am guessing that the editor in question chose to copy the draft under a new title to scrub the other reviewer's decline notices. This is fairly clearly an attempt to game the system, and the repeated attempts to create the article violates parts of WP:DISRUPTIVE. Requesting an admin take a look.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• The recreation of the draft with at least some of the same content at a new title is effectively a cut-and-paste move, so I've merged the histories of the two drafts and restored the previous AFC rejection notices. As far as paid editing it seems that Shrav81 is doing what they're supposed to do, other than the repeated recreations, but they've been hired by a company that's not notable. I don't think the draft qualifies for WP:G10 so I suggest pushing it to WP:MFD. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

'Porn' complaint

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

---

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

---

On Nov. 12, the user who calls himself "The Rambling Man" (aka "TRM") immediately deleted the following request from his Talk page, and took no action on it. (The link in question was to a silly old American pop song on YouTube, and was meant as a joke.)

Stan Lee

Very reluctant though I am to post on your talk: If you're going to crack a joke about me supposedly posting a link to "German porn" you'd better make it damn clear you're joking. Unfair – please go back in & fix. Sca (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This is over the line. I request a retraction and an apology at Wikipedia talk:In the news. – Sca (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

@Sca: Don't link bootleg YouTube videos anywhere on Wikipedia. I've now removed the link from your above post. Please be more careful in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri: How was I to know it was bootlegged? It's been posted on YouTube for almost nine years and viewed nearly 1.8 million times. Sca (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sca: Look at the account name, and if that's unclear look at the channel page. If it doesn't appear to have any direct connection to that particular artist or record company, or has an "eclectic" selection of videos uploaded, then it's probably bootlegged. The number of views and the longevity of the video is irrelevant, since there could be myriad reasons a copyright-holder chooses not to enforce that copyright that do not mean the video is in the public domain and uploading an entire song unedited to YouTube is not considered fair use; and heck, the way YouTube has been going recently, we have no way of knowing if the copyright holder actually does earn revenue from bootleg uploads, while deeming it not worth the effort to upload an "official" version, but that doesn't change our policy that bootleg YouTube videos are never to be linked anywhere on the site. Anyway, the rule is "if in doubt, leave it out", so if you find yourself fretting over whether the video is "official" or "bootlegged", you should assume it is bootlegged and not post it. I should also probably point out for your benefit that arguing over this kind of thing is a quick path to a block: just as this guy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri: I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining how the situation seemed to me at the time. I'm no expert on cyber copyright. (I don't know what a "channel page" is.)

It would be nice if you were to voice a degree of collegial understanding – perhaps even congeniality. Have a nice rest of your day. Sca (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply you were arguing. I was just cautioning you that it might look to others like you were. (I don't have the authority to block you, or the inclination to ask someone else to do so, so even if blocking you was my intent ... well, it's not.) I apologize for not being clearer on this point. Anyway, a "channel page" is the page of a particular YouTube "channel", which is an account that uploads videos. Clicking on the username of the uploader will take you to their channel page. If it says something like "This is the official channel of John Artist." or "This is the official channel of Recordcompany Records, known for albums by John Artist." that means it's probably safe (explicit impersonation accounts with large number of views are likely to be banned fairly quickly), but if there is no connection to either John Artist or Recordcompany Records anywhere on the page, it should be presumed to be just some randomer's YouTube channel, and if some randomer uploads entire copyrighted songs said randomer is a bootlegger. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining. What if it says "Standard YouTube license" – does that make it OK? Sca (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Falconfly

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

---

For several years Falconfly has been adding his personal speculations to articles relating to paleontology, frequently violating WP:NOR by backing them up with sources that do not, in fact, directly support his claims. Calm, reasoned discussion has repeatedly proven ineffective in curbing these tendencies, as he takes an overly defensive attitude towards content he adds and regularly exhibits disproportionate incivility in response to any (or no) opposition towards his edits. This is chronic, recurring behavior and administrator intervention would be appreciated.

Summaries of select incidents are provided below.

• Flying volaticotheres

Beginning in 2015, Falconfly began to modify Wikipedia articles to suggest that volaticotheres, a group of extinct mammals, were capable of powered flight. No peer-reviewed scientific paper to date has ever concluded that volaticotheres were flight-capable. He focused his efforts in particular on Ichthyoconodon, a volaticothere known only from fossils of its teeth. (Note: Chaoyangopterus has been shown to be a sockpuppet of Falconfly.) Similar edits were made to related articles such as Argentoconodon, Triconolestes, Volaticotherini, and Volaticotherium. He went as far as to commission illustrations that depicted these animals in flight, which he then added to Wikipedia. Falconfly engaged in several bouts of edit-warring on the aforementioned articles, particularly between September 2016 and September 2017, and has also attempted to justify his edits by citing a self-published, non-peer-reviewed article that he wrote himself (a violation of WP:NPOV). Most of his commissioned images were later removed from Wikimedia Commons for not having followed the proper procedure outlined by Commons:OTRS (see below).

He refuses to relent despite several attempts to explain to him why these edits constitute WP:SYNTH, including a discussion at WP:NORN, and has continued to push his views on this subject as recently as March 2018.

• Images on Wikimedia Commons

In 2016 and 2017, several images commissioned and uploaded by Falconfly (including some of the aforementioned depictions of flying volaticotheres) were nominated for deletion for not having been uploaded under proper OTRS procedure. He seemed to take these actions personally, displaying an uncooperative, combative attitude throughout, even as other editors were civil. This culminated in him threatening legal action on most of the parties involved, which got him permanently banned from Wikimedia Commons. He has continued to try and get the images reinstated by harassing a previously-involved user who has no say in the OTRS process.

• Mystriosuchus tail fluke

In similar vein to the volaticothere example above, Falconfly is convinced that the extinct reptile Mystriosuchus had a tail fin, a conclusion that is not actually stated by the source he cites for this claim, and has tried to add a commissioned illustration depicting this speculative notion to its article. In December 2017, this violation of WP:NOR was again pointed out to him on the paleoart review page of WP:PALEO, resulting in heated discussion and edit warring that led to a temporary block for Falconfly.

• Maniraptoran reproductive behavior

Most recently, Falconfly has been pushing his view that most Mesozoic maniraptoran dinosaurs reproduced like megapode birds today, burying their eggs inside a mound and the young being capable of flight upon hatching. Though some elements of this reproductive method has been suggested for some Mesozoic maniraptorans, none of the papers he cites extends this entire suite of behaviors to nearly all maniraptorans like he implies. (In fact, several of those same studies outright contradict his claim by providing evidence that the eggs were only partially buried and were attended by a parent.) Once again, this has already been civilly explained to him, to no avail.

• Inflammatory edit summaries

Falconfly often makes inflammatory remarks in his edit summaries, insulting other users on a regular basis. (A perusal of his contribution history will uncover many more examples.)

• Other

As previously mentioned, Chaoyangopterus is a demonstrated sockpuppet of Falconfly. He continued to deny this after the sock account was blocked, despite unambiguous evidence. Chaoyangopterus’ talk page shows that the issues of SYNTH and edit warring were also prevalent on that account.

He repeatedly put words in other users’ mouths in an otherwise benign discussion regarding a page he created. (The unsigned comments are his.)

His block log shows that he has already been temporarily blocked several times for edit warring or harassment of other users.

Shuvuuia (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

And still with this. May I remind literally all of this has been met with outright obtusity and pettiness (i.e. several artists like Julio Lacerda repeatedly sending their confirmations on the part of commission permissions, numerous edit wars and personal attacks on my person, for starters) on YOUR part? I swear, you imbeciles beg to humiliate yourselves. BTW, this constitutes another personal attack on my person; I strongly recommend you to desist, lest you be faced with legal action. - Falconfly

Are you serious? Retract that right now or I'm going to see you blocked for making a legal threat. --Tarage (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Depends. I am contacting wikimedia to sort issues out. I will retract this if you allow me to discuss those issues and drop this nonsense against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Depends nothing. I'm getting an admin. Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deinonychus&oldid=868254730 is still edit warring even if time passes. Use the talk page. --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh well, given your hilarious petty responses I expect you to be punished as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Not surprisingly, Falconfly has threatened their way into a block. I think we can call this resolved? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm content with closing. --Tarage (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: site ban (Falconfly)

Thanks for closing, Tornado chaser, but I think we're not done here. Falconfly is a user with a long history of personal attacks, attempting to WP:OWN articles, making legal threats (this is far from the first and they have doubled down on their talk page), and most importantly, using the website not to build an encyclopedia but to try to publish their own research, and to a lesser extent to promote their own work. It's long past time for this user to be shown the door.

• Support site ban, as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Not yet. Although this may turn out to be unnecessary, I think I'd wait to see how this plays out before proposing a site ban. They are currently indeffed, so will need to retract the legal threats and give assurances that they understand where they have been breaching our content policies before being allowed to edit again. Falconfly has been an editor since 2006, but their block log only dates from December 2017, so I'd be tempted to see if there is a chance that they can reform before writing them off completely. If they can convince an admin that they can safely be unblocked, they will be under scrutiny and it would be simpler to get consensus for a site ban if they breached unblock conditions. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yet - There's really no reason to think that this editor is going to change their viewpoint or their way of editing. I don't think we lose much of anything by giving them the heave ho. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Editor clearly doesn't have the temperament or perhaps sanity to edit here. I've seen a lot but not inventing dinosaurs and then commissioning fan art for them. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's been years and this user's editing patterns have not changed. If anything, he has become more confrontational and unwilling to listen over time, characterizing all opposition as "spite" and "harassment". Shuvuuia (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban Although ENWP does not take into account activity offwiki, the behaviour in Commons is sufficiently parallel to the behaviour exhibited here that an exception can be made. Commissioning someone to create images of their opinion of how a dinosaur behaved then trying to shoehorn into articles here is blatant OR. They threatened legal action on commons and indefinitely blocked, that block still stands and they've doubled down by also threatening legal action here. --Blackmane (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban I mean, making a legal threat, on ANI? Come on. Add in the other persistent behavioural issues, and I think that they need to regain the trust of the community before they edit again. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Since I'm so personally involved in this I will refrain from placing a formal vote on this, but Falconfly has caused nothing but anger and disruption among the wikiproject editors since he began, and I most certainly will not be sad to see him go. Unlike every other discussion, bringing things onto the talk page did nothing to even slightly slow the edit warring or rule violating, and talk pages instead became a cesspool of personal attacks and threats and uncooperative behaviour. While RexxS has a reasonable suggestion for opposing at this moment, the behaviour of falconfly has gotten worse exponentially over time, and I would rather not give them another chance after their recent contributions, over 50 edits in three days which require reviewing, reverting, and getting involved in more and more edit wars. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban, unfortunately. I admire RexxS's good nature and extension of good will, and I wish I could be even slightly optimistic. But we have chronic stonewalling intransigence and a refusal to budge an inch over following Wikipedia's policies and processes (on copyright and OR mainly), the judgment of every opinion and suggestion that disagrees with Falconfly's as harassment, serious and continuous incivility, and an almost immediate resort to legal threats here even after having been banned from Commons for doing the same thing. It's rare that I see any editor as a hopeless case at such a stage in their time here, but I'm afraid this is one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support When an editor responds to a discussion here with name-calling and threats, it appears they want to be banned immediately. We should grant their wish. Jacona (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. If any admin feels in the mood for a facepalm, check out his UTRS request (link on his talk page). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I concur with RexxS that the block resolves the issue satisfactorily for now. --Bsherr (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support This has to be one of the most clear-cut cases of a lack of basic competency and appropriate temperament for the project I have seen in a long while. Using the project to try to push their own fringe original research in contravention of established science, blatant hostility and thoroughly unacceptable PAs and extended harassment directed against those who attempt to restrain these efforts (which attacks have extended even into this thread while their behaviour was being scrutinized), repeated edit warring over an extended period of time, sockpuppetry to support all of these efforts, legal threats when all else fails, and a truly staggering embrace of WP:IDHT, apparently any time that anyone has ever tried to point out the relevant policies and community expectations in relation to these behaviours, including a failure to learn from numerous previous blocks. It's rare that one can be completely comfortable with a CBAN based on the information presented in such a short ANI, but there's abundant evidence presented that this user is not WP:HERE and is unlikely to ever be so. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - You have to be incredibly stupid to make a legal threat on ANI ... and their comments and behaviour across the Project certainly haven't done them any favours either, No amount of blocking and topic bans will change this person, I don't really like to use this phrase but I do genuinely believe they're incompatible with this website, Support site ban. –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per further unambiguous legal threats via UTRS. This editor doesn't get it, and it doesn't look like they're going to any time soon. Yunshui ^雲_水 16:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Props, for the killer Ignatius Reilly impersonation. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• It's admin-only, but wow, that UTRS request sure is something. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Um, yeah, just wow. Canterbury Tail talk 18:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban Given the above legal threat, the OR and everything else it is clear they are here to push their theories which have (I suspect) not made it into reputable journals. Not seeing any benifit in retaining.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban - The only reason I didn't block them indefinitely for their response to the first post was because they had already been blocked and had their talk page access revoked. They have learned nothing in at least three years and seem to indicate that they never will. Putting in a site ban now only saves us trouble from having to do if they decide to start socking. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If they decide to resume socking, I think you mean. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, well, fuck, keep an eye on the oppose !votes to make sure they don't get out the Flavor-Aid. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, they have now also been banned from UTRS. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban per the above comments. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE user

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

---

Hi, Bashir-Afghan made this edit which i reverted because Greater Khorasan encompasses 6 countries, not only Afghanistan. I warned them and here is their first reply : [21] (for that answer, they did not log in probably). And after i said that i was from the Iranian province of Khorasan, here are their replies : [22] and [23]. Admins should deal with this user. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Whereas they are indeed unlikely to stay here for a long time unless they learn basic Wikipedia policies, I do not see anything actionable here.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter, i thought that saying things like "get fucked you stupid Iranian" or "you people are bullshit" was sanctionable, am i mistaken ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I have blocked them indef for harassment.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable time. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Clermiston

The following discussion is closed. 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 mobile, I fear, but some vandalism that's amusing and harmless enough, but should likely n e reverted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

The user Arboleh

This user @Arboleh: is harassing, attacking, threatening me and other users in his edit summaries as well as accusing me and other users of vandalism and racism when we are clearly not, please have a look on his edits summaries here [24], [25] [26] [27] [28]. He is just making fake propaganda in order to divert attention from his edits and confuse people.

Moreover, I and other users have reported this user Arboleh before for sock puppetry and now he is trying to attack me and do the same thing as the suspected sock Itaren which is another unmistakable behavioral evidence that he is sock of Midddayexpress, This Arboleh also had disruptively edited some Wikipedia pages, attacked me, editwarred me, reported me asking for administrator intervention and the he asked for help the same user whom the user Itaren asked for help shortly after Itaren asked him!!! which is an additional unmistakable evidence that both accounts are for the same person who is indeed Middayexpress. The Somali user Middayexpress ( has the Canadian Nationality ) is a very persistent sock puppeteer who has been using many fake accounts in order to promote his racist Afrocentric agenda and vandalize Wikipedia, this user is trying to whitewash Horn Africans and link them to Middle Easterners and North Africans while distancing Horn Africans from their other fellow East Africans brothers which is very racist. At the same time, He is trying to black-wash Middle Easterners and North Africans and linking them to horn Africans:), this guy got really no life, he has been using hundreds of sock puppet accounts in order to vandalize Wikipedia and promote his Afrocentric agenda, for example, he is trying to deattach modern Egyptians from their ancient Egyptians origins and link the Egyptian civilization to Sub Saharan Africans who have nothing at all to do with Egypt or Egyptians which is extremely racist and ridiculous!!!. I have already filed a sock puppeting report against him but It was reverted because some other user before filed a sock puppeting report against the same user and the result was inconclusive because he is using proxy. You can check his IP history and you will find that he uses only proxies and that he never logged in through a legit IP address which means that he is trying to hide something, also this account was created shortly after the block of confirmed sock puppets Middayexpress, Soupforone, Geneticanthro, ....etc and he has been making the same edits on the same pages with almost identical edit summaries. You can also check the behaviors of these accounts and Middayexpress/Soupforone, you will find that the behavioral evidence is very clear and unmistakable. Thank youRyanoo (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)  Investigating.... That first edit summary isn't really at anyone in particular, and I wouldn't classify it as a personal attack. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A few things for you, @Ryanoo:

1. It looks like you're staring at a boomerang here. You have failed to engage on a talk page with Arboleh, and may break 3RR in the near future.
2. You have failed to notify Arboleh about this discussion. This is evident as a notice both on this page and in the edit window. You can copy and paste this onto Arboleh's page: {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=The user Arboleh}}
3. Some of the edit summaries were on pages you've never even edited before. That could be possible WikiHounding.
4. I do agree however, that Arboleh could assume better faith.

This judgement can't replace admin action. You may want to wait for admin input here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300 I didn't fail to engage on the talk page, in fact he is the one who obviously did, I have asked in my edit summary to engage in the talk page and I mentioned him on the talk page [29] in order to discuss the edits. However, he didn't engage in the talk page and reported me for vandalism and continued to attack me personally on other users pages reply!!! Ryanoo (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That in no way excuses your failure to engage Arboleh on their talk page. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300 Regarding the first edit summary I will consider it as both personal and general attacking, he said he is cleaning biased and racist claims while they are clearly not and by this, he means that the users who did those edits are biased and racist while they are clearly not as their edits are clearly of good faith. Regarding the rest of the edit summaries, he clearly harassed, attacked, threatened me and other users as well as well as accused me and other users of vandalism and racism when we are clearly not.Ryanoo (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. WP:NPA does not cover attacks on content, only contributors. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300 I didn't know that I have to notify him and I didn't know also how that can be done. It is done now!Ryanoo (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have already reported this user Ryanoo for Vandalisme to Admin @Doug Weller and Roxy and to the proper Vandalism channel. This user is also extremely racist and harbors white nationalist or white supremacist views. I will wait for the vandalism report, until then I have no need to engage this person, all his intentions and views can be seen in the North Africa page where he spews his racist rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arboleh (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

*Support topic ban of Ryanoo from Africa topics This editor has a short but storied history about arguing pointless about Africa and even the "definition of Africa", and reporting anyone who disagrees as a vandal. This includes even hilariously suggesting that an editor tried to hack their account [30]. I am uninterested in watching this continue, and suggest a topic ban from Africa related topics as a last straw before blocking indef. --Tarage (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Striking my vote for my vote below. Both editors need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage I don't what you are talking about?!!!, my edits are focused on my country Egypt and region ( Middle East and North Africa ) and defending our history from the Afrocentrists who are trying to steal and appropriate it. I have nothing to with Sub-Saharan Africans, apart defending my Egyptian heritage from being stolen and appropriated by the Afrocentic ones of them. Yes, I accused some user of hacking my account in my first days on Wikipedia because I was new to the community and didn't know much information at that time. However, this user whom I accused of hacking my account ( he didn't try to ) got blocked many times because of his bad attitude on Wikipedia, I have been also battling the Afrocentric sock puppeteers and will definitely continue doing this. Those Afro-centrists are 24/7 insulting us Egyptians everywhere and are doing their best to to dattach us from our ancient Egyptian origins and appropriate our heritage and culture and all our mistake is that we are Egyptians!!! which is very racist and offensive, Enough is Enough!!!!! I didn't think that I will encounter such racist people on a main source of knowledge like Wikipedia.Ryanoo (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You started editing in January. This happened in May. You are not new. I've looked through your edit log. Anything of substance has been battleground edits on North Africa. You need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage Yes, I started editing on January, However, I didn't start editing frequently and being little bit familiar until this June. Please read again what I wrote, I didn't say I am new, I said I was new, I was new to editing on Wikipedia until July this year, even now I am still not familiar with rules. Moreover, even the reason for suspecting this user for hacking my account at that time makes so much sense for a new user. At that time, I got two notifications from Wikipedia that there is someone trying to login to my account and I think you have seen that clearly in the report which you mentioned!. Stop What?!, Stop defending my history? leave my history and culture for the racist Afrocentric Black supremacists, If this what you mean, then my answer is "NO". Again in case you didn't read it, I am a patriotic Egyptian archaeogeneticist and academic lecturer and I have along track of strong fighting vandals here on Wikipedia and getting them blocked and admins can check my edit history, I will never ever stop fighting the nonsense of the racist Afrocentrists either here or anywhere else. By the way, what you said is totally irrelevant to the topic of the report.Ryanoo (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't have a "track of strong fighting vandals", you have a lot of false reports. It is not at all irrelevant. By posting here, you have opened yourself up to as much scrutiny as the person you reported. I'm not going to continue arguing with you. The fact that you keep calling editors racist proves you do not belong here. You have a conflict of interest and are pushing a very specific POV. You need to either stop editing this topic, or be blocked. --Tarage (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also stop editing comments after people have replied to them. I'm going to start reverting you. --Tarage (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage Don't threaten me please, I am not a teenager, I am a respected 35 years old archaeogeneticist and academic lecturer. What are you talking about?!! False reports? Anyway the admins as well as other users are free to check my history. I am replying to you and I have the right to do so, we are all users here and I have the right to reply. Sorry, you are wrong here :), I am actually here for fighting the ones who have clear racist and destructive POV ( a.k.a Afrocentrists ), I am here to construct and I hate scientific dishonest people and I say it in their face and scientific honesty and self respect are my first priority. So, you aren't ok when I call racist people racist, but you are OK, when they call me racist, just for defending my history! By the way, I don't mind leaving Wikipedia at all :), if they don't want good scientific specialist users, I think registration on Wikipedia should be by using Identification card to avoid vandalism and sock puppeting which will save the community here a great deal of time wasted in fighting sock puppeting and vandalism and will also give more credibility. Ryanoo (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ryanoo: On the internet, nobody can prove you're a respected archaeologist. Besides, we wouldn't be able to accept what you say due to Wikipedia's policy against original research, unless you get it published and it is accepted formally. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: I can prove it easily and in fact I am very willing to do so, I can provide you with my passport and identification card or If you have an office or branch in my country or even in another country in the same region (MENA), I have no problem at all to happily visit it so they can make sure of my identity and in fact I very much support that registration on Wikipedia should be by using identification card or passport or whatever way which can prove the identity of the user which will save the community a great deal of time and will give more credibility. What do you mean by accepting what I say, If you mean my edits, well, I always cite published and accepted sources. Thank youRyanoo (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

If you can prove it, congratulations, but that is not a get out of jail free card. You still need to follow Wikipedia policy, if you're willing to listen to what Tarage and I say. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: I already follow Wikipedia policy, could you tell me when I didn't?? Listen to what?? could you clarify it? what do you want me to do exactly?? the user Tarage accused me of somethings I never did, the only thing right he said is that I reported someone for hacking my account, and I said that at that time I was still new and wasn't familiar with Wikipedia rules and I did it because I got two notifications from Wikipedia regarding someone user trying to login to my account. I didn't try to define Africa or any of this nonsense. The problem was that another user was trying to add some Sub-Saharan African West African and East African countries to North Africa!!!, he was disruptively editing the page and was refusing to engage in the talk page, and after I refuted this user claims providing tons of sources on the talk page of North Africa he refused to continue the discussion on the talk page, he insulted, attacked me personally and threatened me as expected and at the end he refused to continue the discussion on the talk page and came to attack me personally and threaten me on my page. It was this user who was trying to redefine a very clear geographic location!! North Africa simply means the Mediterranean countries located in the northernmost North Africa, it is actually a straw-man argument!! it is like trying to include Norway in South Europe. Almost all the world organizations such as the World Bank, US Census, African Union itself, FAO, Population Reference Bureau, WTO and I can list tons of other world organizations if you want consider North Africa to be only the Mediterranean countries located in the extreme northernmost of the continent and I have never came across any organization which consider Sahel as part of North Africa!! and If you did, so please provide your sources. Moreover, this user has removed very much info related to the topic and added very irrelevant info, he turned the page from North Africa to African Sahel, It is like to turning the page East Asia to the page of Congo!! I didn't actually want to talk about this as it irrelevant to the topic of the report but as some user have already talked about it, then I have to reply.Ryanoo (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's start with this very report. You speak of reverts where you yourself had reverted without engaging with the other party. That violates Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. You also missed the edit notice at the top of both this page and the edit window to notify the reported user. Given the strong wording, this is almost certainly a policy. You also accuse Arboleh of vandalism, but that is not so. They were merely boldly removing content to which they thought did not conform with Wikipedia guidelines, to which you then reverted, claimed the summary was a personal attacked, and then accused them of being a vandal with this very report. Most people who disagree with you are not vandals.

Now, the edit summaries linked I believe while may not be assuming bad faith, is also not really an infraction against WP:NPA, and it was never directed at you. The edit summary Cleaned up biased and racist claims. describes the content, not the contributor, which means WP:NPA does not apply here. Once again, they've only made bold edits.

Furthermore, most of the diffs you've provided are of articles you've never even edited before. This seems very much like wikihounding to me, and point pushing behaviour. That is, you've gone and reverted pretty much all their edits over one edit you've disagreed with, and most likely had thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Given all of the above, this report will most likely end with a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban for you. Tread carefully. I strongly suggest you've read what I've written above, and take Tarage's points in too. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support boomerang topic ban of Ryanoo from Africa topics: per both Tarage and my points above. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300 First off, I have edited many of these articles as well as many other articles before long time ago before registering on Wikipedia and while wasn't logged in, so your claim of Wikihonding doesn't make any sense!. Also, I didn't fail to engage on the talk page, in fact he is the one who obviously did, I have asked in my edit summary to engage in the talk page and I mentioned him on the talk page [31] in order to discuss the edit. However, he didn't engage in the talk page and reported me for vandalism and continued to attack me personally on other users pages reply!!!, why aren't you trying about him not trying to engage me in the talk page??!! Sorry, but I feel you are clearly trying to confuse the issue by turning the table on me ( for some reason which I don't know, may I know where are you from? ) and totally ignoring what the user did. Secondly, you are talking only about one edit summary of this user in which he clearly described good faith edits as biased and racist!! when they are clearly not, while totally ignoring his other edit summaries which include very clear personal attack and false accusations and his behavior ( he reported me for vandalism when I am clearly not as well as attacking me on other users pages ). Haven't you seen the edits which I provided above in addition his other edits of attacking and harassing me on other user pages as well as reporting for vandalism when I am clearly not[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. Moreover, yes one of his edit summaries isn't directed at me, so should I overlook the ones which target others??. He even has the guts to come and attack me saying some weird Afrocentric nonsense showing his real Afrocentric face, he is blaming me for defending my country's by calling me a Euro-centrist!! LOL. For those Afro-centrists, anyone who is defending his culture and history from being hijacked by them is a Euro-centrist!!. He considers me Euro-centrist because I am defending my history, and by showing the fact that my country is a Mediterranean, Middle Eastern and North African country which it is indeed is [39], [40] [41]. This Afrocentric user wants me to remove my country from its geographic location, deattach our Egyptian people from their origins and go and give it as a present to his Black people in Somalia in East Africa in Sub-Saharan Africa. It seems that this guy didn't open a map or history book in his life and is just like in a world of imagination like the rest of his fellow Afrocentrists who are trying to appropriate our culture and history ( as well as others history such as Phoenicians, Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Chinese and almost every ancient culture on this planet and probably other planets! ). Egypt is a Mediterranean, North African and Middle Eastern, so are the Egyptians!. Somalia is an East African country located in Sub-Saharan Africa, so are the Somalis, It is simple as that, he should love himself and stop appropriating and lumping himself with people who he is totally different from in every aspect. And regarding banning from editing Africa topics, that really doesn't make any sense, well, in fact I don't mind that at all, my edits are mainly focused on my country Egypt and my region ( Mediterranean basin, Middle East and North Africa) topics, I didn't edit much in Sub-Saharan Africa topics and I am not much interested in editing articles or topics related to Sub-Saharan Africans, but you can't prevent me from editing my country and my region topics and defend my history from being hijacked by the lunatic and racist Afro-centrists.Ryanoo (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ryanoo: There is no immunity for reporters. At the moment, you are more guilty of what you are reporting Arboleh for. Actually, you did accuse them of being a vandal, repeadedly trying to revert them. Also, your engagement happened only once, they indeed tried to talk with you (and you just dismissed them as a vandal) and you edit warred over North Africa.

Please just read what I've posted above and stop trying to accuse everyone of being a vandal. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You are wikihounding by the way. You found one of their edits, then decided to revert other edits of theirs, some on articles you've never even edited before (and I'm not about to prove you are those IPs). Even if you do edit with IPs on those pages, that still does not excuse the hounding and point-pushing on your behalf. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I did read all of the edits and the only one that seems to not be a bold edit is the second one. The rest have nothing to do with you, and I don't know why you report them besides wikihounding. Also, assume good faith already!Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Arboleh Again love yourself and stop trying to lump yourself with Egyptians, Middle Easterners and North Africans because you guys are simply not from the MENA area. Also please stop deattaching modern Egyptians from their ancient Egyptian origins like what you did on the Page of DNA history of Egypt because it is very racist and extremely offensive, respect other nations like others are doing with you, as there is no one trying to claim your history, please stop trying to appropriate others history. I am an Egyptian and you know and I know that Somalis are totally different racially, genetically, culturally, linguistically, and in every aspect from Egyptians and other MENAs. Your history is in Somalia which is an East African country in Sub-Saharan Africa, not in North Africa or the Middle EastRyanoo (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

References

I'm concerned about Ryanoo's trying to keep in Land of Punt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) what appears to be a self-published source from a blog.[42] There doesn't appear to be a "Lepoivre Bertrand" or perhaps "Bertrand Lepoivre" and I can't find any evidence of these chapters in the blog[43] outside the blog. I think it was originally added by an IP which I presume was Ryanoo editing logged out and then by another IP. @Ryanoo: were those IPs you and who is this Bertrand? Doug Weller talk 10:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

What, you've never heard of Bertie the Pepper? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That paragraph seems to be translated from fr:Pays de Pount, the French version of the article (or vice versa). I don't know what to make of the Charmutha series on that nant44 site. Maybe a French editor has an idea. Are there any here? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Ryanoo, I love myself thank you, and I don't care about your Middle Eastern or Mediterranean heritage but you should not scrape the term Northeast Africa from Wikipedia when it's a valid region of the Nile Valley that exists and that every scientific paper uses. If you want to claim Egypt is part of your Middle Eastern and Mediterranean heritage that's fine but don't censure valid information, this region exists and is very intertwined, the mere fact Ethiopia announced the Renaissance Dam made Egypt worried for its survival as 95% of the population lives along the Nile, and you want us to believe this region is not connected? you can keep your 18th century racist views of Egypt to yourself without censuring facts. I also would like people here who have the capability to create that Northeast Africa page to do so. Arboleh (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Arboleh LOL Which region are you talking about?? What are you talking about?? and which scientific papers are you talking about??! the link you provided totally contradict your claims and it shows that Horn Africans are totally different from Egyptians and other North African and Middle Easterners, check this admixture fractions of clusters of the link you cited !!! [44], It seems that you know nothing at all about genetics that you cited a page which totally contradicts what you said and can be used as an evidence against your claims LOL, I am an archaeogeneticist by the way. This name exists only in your dreams and your edits regarding this topic were reverted two times before by an administrator here [45] [46] for being very poorly sourced. Man, you are from Somalia which is an East African in Sub-Saharan Africa which has nothing at all to do with North African and Middle Eastern countries. Don't you like your area and looking for some ancestry in North Africa and the Middle East or something ???and Why are trying yourself to deattach yourself from your fellow brothers in East Africa brothers in Kenya, Uganda and so on and try linking yourself to North Africans and Middle Easterners?!!! stop this nonsense please, you are just embarrassing yourself and your people who are proud of their country and don't agree with nonsense at all. Again love yourself, your people and your great fellow East African and Sub-Saharan African brothers and stop trying to link yourself to people whom you are totally different from in every aspect!.Ryanoo (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop calling editors racist. Both of you. Assume some good faith dammit. --Tarage (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Ryanoo, this is about the term Northeast Africa being used by the scientific community and not about the Horn of Africa genetics which you can find on that page if you were not trolling, and anyways you're not related to the Ancient Egyptians. Learn to love your immigrant heritage and stop the hate. Arboleh (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

LOL You don't know even the nature of the link you cited which has nothing to do with what you say and totally contradicts your claims. WOW finally you showed your real Afrocentric face which you have been tying to hide, as other Afro-centrists, you couldn't hide your racism and started insulting an Egyptian for being an Egyptian!!! I won't reply to your insults and I will leave it for the administrators to deal with that. Ryanoo (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Ryanoo, If you don't behave we're gonna cut your water off :) Arboleh (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

BOTH OF YOU STOP. You BOTH don't understand that all you are doing is digging a hole deeper. You are BOTH acting like children right now. Stop posting, let everyone else view the logs and decide what to do. You are doing yourself NO favors by continuing this. --Tarage (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Request close

 Request withdrawn

 – Forget the header above please. Discussion is still relevant however. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has clearly gone off the rails. Can we close this, maybe? No punishment needed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300, with all due respect I disagree with your assessment, If you got offended by my little "Ancient Egyptian" jab at Ryanoo it shows clearly the bias I am talking about within the Wikipedia editors. Ryanoo is a racist editor and the proof is all over Wikipedia and yet a jab becomes an offense that derails the issue to the point where you want to recommend nothing for his racist views and constant vandalism of the Land of Punt by using derogatory and disgusting links? I think he should be banned from Wikipedia out right, he is a racist who spews white supremacist views and considers Africans sub-human. If you keep him, it validates what I have been saying all along, that this place is full of racist editors who dont give a damn about facts as long as it supports their racial preconceived views. Arboleh (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop. Calling. Editors. Racist. I'm not going to say it again. I WILL grab an admin and see you both blocked if you continue. --Tarage (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Why do you constantly accuse others of racism? I've nothing to do with any topics you've edited until now. Besides, that close comment wasn't directed at either you or Ryanoo in particular. Please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being racist. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300, my bad I thought you had closed the discussion because of the jab, apologies. Arboleh (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Dragon, I'm afraid I disagree. It's clear to me now that both of these editors are problematic, therefor I am recommending a topic ban for both editors from Africa/Egypt topics, broadly construed. This is a supreme waste of time. --Tarage (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Very well. Withdrawn my close proposal. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, Can you please point to a page where I demeaned Wikipedia users for their racial background like Ryanoo does? So please don't equate me to him, if you are offended by my use of the word "racist" that is your personal opinion but Ryanoo comments all over the place prove you wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arboleh (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaking me for someone who cares about your squabble. You will stop calling editors racist or you will be blocked. Period. --Tarage (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Support topic ban for both editors Judging by this, both editors are using WP:STICKs with a bend against each other. Could an interaction ban be appropriate? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: As I've been asking folks below, what is the justification for this proposal? If we're going to enact an IBAN, that makes sense. But a TBAN suggests we believe an editor cannot edit constructively within a given topic. I think there is some evidence for that in the case of Ryanoo, but all I see in the case of Arboleh is that they are unable to get along with Ryanoo (which may or may not be due to some poking going on with the aggressiveness in Ryanoo's responses). What is the evidence that Arboleh merits a ban from the topic in its entirety, or that they didn't engage in collaborative efforts, or that their editing in this area is tendentious? A TBAN seems inappropriate to counter interaction issues with another editor, and while I've seen a lot of negative response to the language each editor is using to describe the other, I haven't seen any uninvolved editors point out issues in Arboleh's editing in this discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Part of the rationale for a topic ban is that these users seem to be POV pushing (Most edits by Ryanoo "has been battleground edits on North Africa" according to Tarage, Arboleh seems to be calling anyone who disagrees with them on this topic "racist") which is why a double topic ban may be needed as well as an IBAN. On a side note, pings only work if you sign in the same edit, I can tell you tried a ping. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 13:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: Yeah, I screwed up the ping. But where are the diffs of Arboleh calling anyone who disagrees a racist? I saw Arboleh call Ryanoo racist, and to be fair, Ryanoo has been skewing on the edge of that in his overblown commentaries about his own expertise and his bad-faith allegations about the motivations of anyone who disagrees with him trying to promote an Afrocentrist agenda. But when did Arboleh call other users racist, and where did he call Ryanoo racist without any provocation? We seem to have jumped quickly to that conclusion, but all the really ugly diffs and quotations people are citing are tied only to Ryanoo, and until Arboleh got riled up by Ryanoo's allegations, I didn't see such language, nor have I seen it directed at other editors. I think that's why I'm concerned--Tarage's (understandable) frustration led to an immediate call for a TBAN, but I'm seeing some dangerous false equivalency going on here, and I've seen NO evidence that Arboleh seems to be calling anyone who disagrees with them on this topic "racist"; where are the diffs of that, which is a pretty significant accusation? Again, a read-through of the North Africa talkpage shows a history of battleground behavior from Ryanoo against a number of editors, but I don't see problematic behavior from Arboleh until his motives get questioned in the middle of a condescending tirade and he's on the receiving end of a backhanded accusation of subverting the truth. Grandpallama (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify--Arboleh edit-warring and incorrectly labeling others' edits as vandalism is problematic behavior, but I'm not sure that's worth a TBAN. More in line with block. Grandpallama (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose bans for Ryanoo and Arboleh

I see a few potential outcomes. Note that all topic bans are broadly construed. topic bans and indefinite unless noted otherwise. You may suport multiple proposals. Feel free to support a proposal outside what I've lined below.

Pinging Tarage and SemiHypercube, since they've advocated bans before.

1. Both Ryanoo and Arboleh are banned from Africa and Egypt topics.
2. Ryanoo only is banned from Africa and Egypt topics.
3. Arboleh only is banned from Africa and Egypt topics.
4. Ryanoo and Arboleh are interaction banned against each other.
5. Ryanoo is one way interaction banned from Arboleh.
6. Arboleh is one way interaction banned from Ryanoo.
7. Oppose any ban (mutually exclusive)

• Support proposal 2 and 4: per my previous posts. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 4, but not against 2, 3, 5, or 6: Frankly this is a bit verbose and unlikely to reach consensus but sure. The problem is from both sides and I see a LOT of POV pushing and pointless bickering. I also see racism claims being thrown around. --Tarage (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  To clarify, but not against means you will not oppose 2, 3, 5 and 6? Anyway, I think a formal proposal for bans may be neccesary. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  It means I am not opposed to any of those passing. I support them, I just support 1 and 4 more. They both need to be banned from that topic, and they both need an interaction ban. But I'll take what I can get. --Tarage (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 4 per User:Tarage. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 23:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 4 per above. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 4 per User:TheDragonFire300's observations. I see appalling behavior here from Ryanoo, and some less than ideal behavior from Arboleh, but the latter seems to be in exasperated response. Ryanoo seems to lack competence to edit WP, and I suspect a TBAN here will be the beginning of a slow spiral toward an indefinite block of some sort down the line. Grandpallama (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 2 and 4 The reason why things have cooled off between myself and Ryanoo was because I was wise enough to ask for page protection for the North Africa page. If admins hasn’t intervened, I’m positive we would have been at square one. I think Arboleh may be reacting this way because Ryanoo seems to be trying to game the system to ban users he clashes with (tried the above case with Arboleh, opened a random SPI on me) rather than civilly discussing issues. I also agree with @Grandpallama: Itaren (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 4 per Itaren. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Just from what I've seen on this thread I'm already sick of both of you-there seems to be a lot of anger and insults and precious little that is constructive here.

Statements such as 'I am actually here for fighting the ones who have clear racist and destructive POV a.k.a Afrocentrists' or 'I am here so as not to leave my history and culture for the racist Afrocentric Black supremacists' hardly give the impression of someone who is here to help cultivate an encyclopaedia.

I would also note whilst we're debating this that Ryanoo has stated 'regarding banning from editing Africa topics...in fact I don't mind that at all,my edits are mainly focused on my country Egypt and my region(Mediterranean basin,Middle East and North Africa topics'. So I would add the caveat that 'Africa-related topics' covers ALL of the African continent and related themes. We don't need another round of North Africa vs Sub-Saharan Africa-which is the real Africa?

So it's

• Support 1 and 4 with that caveat. Lemon martini (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Lemon martini:Both of the quotations you included are from Ryanoo, so I'm curious as to why you say you see equally bad behavior from Arboleh. Grandpallama (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 4 per Tarage. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Kzl55:, why would interaction issues between these two users necessitate that both of them be topic-banned? Even a cursory glance at the article in question shows only one of these editors having difficulty with collaborative editing and failing to show good faith. I continue to be mystified at what seems to me to be unjustified support for a TBAN of Arboleh. If the expectation is that Arboleh needs to be sanctioned for having suggested Ryanoo's editing is racist (which the interactions show may not be entirely unjustified), that is only grounds for an IBAN. It doesn't demonstrate an inability to edit in the topic area. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  Is there a reason you are pinging everyone who doesn't respond in the way you'd like them to? You should stop. --Tarage (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  I've asked three people to justify seeking a topic ban for a user on the basis that the user is calling "anyone who disagrees with him a racist" when the diffs don't back this up--saying that I'm pinging "everyone" is just as unfounded as some of the other statements you made earlier. I'm also worried that your own frustration with the preceding conversation led to a premature call for a topic ban for a user based upon declarations about his editing that weren't backed up by any provided diffs. Is there a policy that I've violated by seeking reasoning from some people for their support? No? Then my response is that the next time you prepare to tell me what I should or shouldn't do, you should stop. Grandpallama (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Grandpallama: I also agree with Tarage on this. I would suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 18:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)(

  If you think my responses to the two most recent votes constitute bludgeoning, you're free to take it up with an admin. That said, I think I've replied enough to this topic, so the end result is the same, either way. Grandpallama (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 4, could live with 2, 3, 5, or 6 per Tarage. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

User:John.menzies61202

User:John.menzies61202 is uploading non-free images / copyrighted publicity photographs from British television shows via Wiki Commons and releasing them into the public domain despite not owning the rights. It may just be that they do not understand the guidelines here but it probably needs admin intervention to stop the problem from escalating, given that they uploaded numerous images and it appears the sole purpose of the account. Wiki Commons contribs / upload log. I have privded a selection of edit differences here to demonstrate how they are then adding them to Wikipedia articles - [47] [48] [49] [50].Rain the 1 23:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Raintheone: Why did you not make any attempt at raising the issue on John's talk page before reporting at ANI? Tornado chaser (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

User:DrKay

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

---

Is this acceptable language for a Wikipedian under any circumstances? I think I need to know that. I was commenting there on h edit summary, not on his subsequent explanation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

First off, I think that edit summary is somewhat uncivil, but probably not worth taking to ANI for. Second, you didn't notify the user that you started an ANI thread on them, though I did that for you. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The general feeling seems to be that a one-off loss of temper and resulting use of a rude word is part of being an imperfect human, while frequent such attacks are more problematic. So asking if it is "acceptable" is a little too simplistic. Not exactly praiseworthy, but it's best ignored if it's rare. ANI isn't really the place to ask hypothetical questions; I assume you aren't here to try to get them in trouble? At least some time could also be spent wondering if you did anything wrong to warrant someone getting mad... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

For example, your tone that led to that comment came of as somewhat obnoxious. Not an excuse, but an explanation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable, and I apologize for and withdraw it. DrKay (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) (edit conflict) @SergeWoodzing: ANI is basically the last resort short of ArbCom. Do you have diffs of you or other editors attempting to discuss DrKay's language with them? Generally speaking, if you post something on someone's talk page, and they blank your message with the edit summary May I respectfully suggest you be more careful in the future about making facetious and sarcastic comments on a user's talk page when you don't actually object to their edit? Otherwise, you come across as an arrogant prick who is wasting their time. I explicitly said "I don't know what his full name is, in the sense of a legal name under civil law or birth name.", generally you should take on board the advice, rather than immediately running to the second highest court in the land to complain about them, so you don't come across as an arrogant prick who is wasting people's time; by jumping here, as you appear to have done, you just prove their point.

In answer to the question as you literally posed it, no, of course it is not acceptable "under any circumstances". It may be acceptable under some, though. For example, here, he didn't actually say "You are an arrogant prick", but rather "You might come across as an arrogant prick if you continue behaving in this way."

And now after my third edit conflict I see that I was 100% right that you should have just politely asked them not say that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

• Looks like DrKay answered the questioned asked and apologized, good job DrKay, thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thanx. Apology accepted. I too lose my temper at times, and I hope to be given such a gentlemanly opportunity to apologize when I do, whatever the forum. It was not my intent to offend anyone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet's two hooks are in DYK Queue 6, needs to be removed

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

---

The nominator of Qiu Bojun and Women in Iceland was just banned as a sockpuppet. Both articles are in Template:Did you know/Queue/6. I think that it's fine if they aren't replaced by the same admin who removes them, but they just need to be removed before they go live on the main page. SL93 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@SL93: Women in Iceland was created by User:Yellow.Umbrella. Also, you'd be better in this case, posting at WT:DYK as that's watched by a lot of editors (including admins) with specialist DYK knowledge. ——SerialNumber54129 19:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I posted there first, but I didn't know if I should post here since it gets updated in a few hours. Thanks and sorry for the trouble. SL93 (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, no problem whatsoever! ——SerialNumber54129 19:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

BLP violations on Jackie Walker (activist)

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

---

SPA JonathanMarkOfVirginia has removed RS content and replaced it with content based solely on OR.[51][52][53][54][55][56]. Despite warnings the editor has continued to repeatedly insert these BLP violations against talk page consensus in the Jackie Walker (activist) article and others. RevertBob (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Page protected for 2 days. I see no actual consensus on the talk page. Keep discussing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've certainly done a fine job edit-warring with them about it. You should've tried other methods of dispute resolution by now—a third opinoin springs to mind—instead of edit summaries such as "see talk", which directs one with a talk page singularly lacking any consensus. ——SerialNumber54129 13:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to say I am somewhat disturbed that users are edit warring over what makes someone a given race or religion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Noting for the record that BLP violation was reverted by an admin.[57] Qualitist (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It could be argued—cogently, perhaps—that the amount of trouble that both parties have caused is highglighted by the fact that Ivanvector had to go back over 30 edits to find a last clean version... ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I just went back to the first revision I could find before either of the editors started into the current dispute, which is my personal SOP for BLP-related edit wars. Also, as an update, both JonathanMarkOfVirginia and an IP that opened the talk page discussion have been blocked as sockpuppets, and I have thus reduced the article protection to ECP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:CIR

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

---

Anonymous Hidden has repeatedly edit-warred at Saint Peter for including the following line:

• But the Truth is Peter is Not the First Pope He is An Apostle Only and the First Pope is Linus

He has been warned about talk in article, about original research and so on, also the phrase is ungrammatical. He also had a 3RR warning, but does not seem to care. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The inevitable has happened. I was going to post here earlier that he should log in under his original account; but did not do so in the knowledge that Bbb23 would have bollocked me :p :D ——SerialNumber54129 17:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Dimas gilang persistent disruptive editing

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

---

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

Dimas gilang has a history of disruptive editing with multiple warnings on his talk page, all of which he has ignored. He has created numerous unreferenced articles and, when they are moved to draft space or deleted, he just moves them back to main space or recreates them. A recent example is Fokus (Indosiar news program) which was moved to draft space by PaleoNeonate back in September. He subsequently has recreated the page at multiple locations, only to have the pages redirected to the draft and/or deleted. Unfortunately, deletion of Fokus (Indosiar news program) has allowed him to move the article back to mainspace. Another of his creations, INews (TV program), is currently at AfD and all three of the delete voters, Gonnym, IJBall and me, have made negative comment about Dimas gilang's work. Of course we all understand that we should be commenting on the content, not on the contributor, but I think the comments demonstrate the level of frustration that we have in dealing with this editor, especially after constructive criticism has been ignored. For example, in September I politely asked him not to use flags in infoboxes and directed him to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Despite this, he continues to create articles with infobox flags as his latest poorly sourced article demonstrates. Note the fixes that I've just had to make to that article.[58] In October, only 16 days ago I asked him to format infoxes correctly after this effort. I took the opportunity to mention correct use of infobox fields, date linking (clearly he has ignored that from the Jenny Tan example above), WP:NOTTVGUIDE and correct use of italics but he continues to ignore these. For example, at Seputar iNews I had removed a list of airtimes,[59] but he just restored them.[60] Even after asking him to format infoboxes correctly (and everything else I asked him) he persists in creating articles that contain numerous violations. See Delik (TV program) and the fixes that I had to make. UseeTV (previously mentioned) is an example of a program that was moved to draft space and which Dimas gilang immediately moved back to mainspace. It is now at AfD. Finally, at least for the moment, concerns have been raised about his assertion of ownership of articles by both HitroMilanese[61] and myself.[62] The latest came after he posted yet another banner on my talk page stating please don't moving & editing my article on draft.[63] This was just before he moved Draft:Fokus (Indosiar news program) back to mainspace. This editor seems unable to understand the requirements of WP:GNG, the requirement to source articles or to comply with our other policies and guidelines. There seem to be severe competency issues that need addressing as his efforts are creating a lot of work for other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably the worst example of this editor's blatantly bad behavior is the saga involving Kompas (news program) (which has also been at Kompas (Kompas TV news program) and Draft:Kompas (Kompas TV news program), and which is now at Kompas (TV program) and which is still failing to meet WP:GNG). The latter ruckus even got this editor blocked by Amakuru (see also User talk:Amakuru#Kompas (news program)). At this point, I fully believe this user is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate on this project, and should get an WP:INDEF block. At a minimum, they should be indefinitely banned from creating articles (probably even in Draftspace...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Actions included hijacking an existing talk page to avoid scrutiny/patrol when recreating, like this. I remember warning with a standard COI template as well but there was no answer. My impression is that this is typical undisclosed conflict of interest and spamming... —PaleoNeonate – 09:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, it may previously have been disclosed. —PaleoNeonate – 09:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

A few more examples of Dimas gilang asserting ownership:[64][65][66][67][68] And let's not forget the time he accused PaleoNeonate of being a hacker.[69] --AussieLegend (✉) 10:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Along with all of this, in the process of nominating one of Dimas's articles for deletion, they posted these obnoxious "Wikilove" messages all over my talk page. I would support a CIR block because they seem to not understand anything on the encyclopedia, despite being here for almost 2 years.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 19:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Support CIR block per 💵. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, disclosed for a second or two. Immediately after posting that he blanked the page.[70] --AussieLegend (✉) 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel like with this editor it's a game of whack-a-mole as nothing seems to stop him. As I look for articles that are not named according to television guidelines I keep on seeing the same articles I've previously tagged over and over again. Just yesterday he moved (again) Fokus (Indosiar news program) from draft to mainspace. He obviously does not care for the correct process, or for writing and other guidelines, and as a result, for other editor time which is spent cleaning after him. Also, from the types of articles he's creating, I'm almost positive it is a CoI situation. --Gonnym (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

As if to reinfoce everything that has been said here, he has just created Aiman (TV program), with all of the problems that he has previously been warned about: improper infobox formatting, a flag in the infobox, multiple invalid infobox fields, datelinking, with some incorrect bolding and unnecessary piping thrown in for good measure, all of which somebody else will have to fix. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response but immediate block is needed on this person. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and this person is treating Wikipedia as a personal blog. People like AussieLegend, IJball and Neonate are investing their time on him, we should utilize their effort in something fruitful. Dimas gilang is truly incompetent for English Wikipedia, he has no perception of GNG. Hitro talk 21:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that is now very likely that User:Dimas gilang is socking at 139.0.207.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Pinging Onel5969 and SkyGazer 512 to see if they have any comment... But this may now involve an account block, and an IP block as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block per COI/UPE, DE, NOTHERE, CIR. For any admin observing, that's now a unanimous consensus among the 8 editors on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping IJBall - I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, this is a very new editor (account created in September 2018) who is adding articles from a non-English area. On the other, I understand the frustration of editors who make valid, good faith attempts to provide counsel and direction, only to be either ignored or rebuffed. Normally I might suggest that they be given a mentor, to help them learn the ropes. However, in this instance, due to their apparent attitude based on their actions, I don't think that would help, and might simply cause unneeded frustration to another editor. I don't participate much on ANI, but I must reluctantly agree that this editor has earned an indef block. Therefore I add my Support as per NOTHERE and CIR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, his first edit was in December 2015. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Onel5969, he edited sparsely in 2015 and 2016. He also has multiple deleted article creations, which is why you can't see all of his edits unless you are an admin [71]. Softlavender (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef. I generally don't comment at ANI, but I am quite involved in this situation and IJBall did give me a ping (thank you for that), so I might as well pile-on. I have always wanted to try to avoid indefinite blocks for good-faith editors as much as possible; I believe they usually do not help situations and do not help improve the encyclopedia. However, this is a case where I believe it would be necessary. What I see here is this user creating a ton of clearly non-notable pages and doing multiple actions against policy, which users do sometimes, particularly less experienced ones. However, what I don't see here is the user trying to respond to the concerns more experienced users are pointing out. Not a single one of his talk page posts have been replied to by him, and he continues his disruptive behavior without acknowledging the concerns that were brought up at all. Communication and collaboration is a vital part of the wiki, especially responding to concerns about editing behavior, which Dimas gilang is clearly not doing. Thus, I believe a CIR block is the only choice now.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef since there has been no response by Dimas gilang. Excelse (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

He has responded in a way, by completely ignoring this discussion and continuing to ignore the advice given to him by creating poor articles like NET. (TV program) that contain the same incorrect formatting, invalid infobox fields, datelinking, WP:REDNOT violations etc., that he has been warned about previously. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It's almost as if he's being deliberately disruptive now. Previously, BLPs seemed to escape his incompetent editing but now he seems to have decided to apply himself to BLPs. Gista Putri, for example, contains the bad infobox formatting, datelinking etc. With no admin apparently interested in addressing this editors deficiencies, what's the option? I'm sick of being civil to this editor. Drastic measures time. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef Block for COI/UPE, DE, NOTHERE, CIR as per Softlavender, or just plain disregard for all community norms, and their complete failure to respond to any of the concerns raised here. I just had a look at their latest article, the BLP Gista Putri, and its pretty bad- meaningless puffery, unencyclopedic language, debatable notability, lack of citations for several statements, basic spelling errors/typos in a heading (Carrer instead of Career), and many style issues like bolding of both subjects and parents names throughout the article, in addition to those problems mentioned by AussieLegend. It pretty much needs complete rewriting. of the 4 sources it has, 2 look like unreliable gossip profile sites, 1 goes to page not found, and the other to a domain for sale ad. I checked the Indonesian Wiki, and the article is a straight copy paste of it using google translate; the editor didnt bother to check, or care, if the reference links were still good. If noone is willing to block, at the very least this editor should be topic banned from creating articles, and mandated to go through AFC- which should be automatic for anyone who, as PaleNeonate pointed out, appears to have already admitted a COI. Curdle (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello? Could we get a little Admin intervention here please?! – There's clearly consensus that this editor will not improve their behavior (indeed, they're still at it) and should be blocked. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless editors disagree I'm planning to issue an indef block of User:Dimas gilang. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN by User:Ɱ

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

---

This user has continued to attempt to OWN the article Briarcliff Manor, New York and I would like to have an unbiased admin take a look at this situation.

1. The use of {{Geobox}} for pages about locations has been deprecated for years. After the first objection from this user, I formally renominated the template for discussion and it was speedily closed. To quote the user who closed it (Pigsonthewing) This has already been done and the use of Geobox for settlements is long-since deprecated.
2. In this diff the user stated I will convert again asserting that he owns the article.
3. In comments on my talk page (see the full thread here) the user has stated that I maintain the quality of the FA, which means that I keep all of the parameters from being removed.
4. Another comment in that same thread by the user said I spent about 1,200 edits to this article alone, so stop imposing yourself when you haven't contributed anything. AGAIN demonstrating WP:OWN.
5. On multiple ocassions both on my talk page in the tread linked to above and on the talk page for the article I have attempted to talk through the issues with this user, their stance has continued to be that until {{Infobox settlement}} is converted to the way that THEY want it, they will not allow the article to be changed.
6. {{Infobox settlement}} has 485,845 transclusions as of right now. {{Geobox}} has only ONE for settlements. The decision was long made not to continue to use Geobox for settlements yet this user continues to insist on having things done his way.
7. Finally, I was under the impression we have FINALLY worked through all the issues per the thread on the article's talk page, but it now seems the user is refusing to allow "his" article to be changed until The 'named for' parameter for some reason displays much lower in a random place; it should be moved to near the nickname, as they both refer to and explain the place name. Also, unlike the Geobox, it links to Namesake, which seems a little unnecessary. People will understand what 'named for' means. This is one users opinion. Again the template works fine for the other 485,000+ transclusions. To prevent the change from being made for this reason demonstrates clear attempts to WP:OWN in my opinion. To be clear, I have no objection to that change being made to the template. But it should be discussed on the template talk page and should not block this process just because of one user's objects.

I would appreciate if an unbiased admin could investigate this issue. In the mean time:

1. I will not make ANY further edits to Briarcliff Manor, New York. There is no need to edit protect the page to prevent edit warring. I'm not touching the page again. Neither the article itself nor the talk page. I'm removing myself completely.
2. I will not have any contact with Ɱ other then the required notification of this post. I'm not interested in getting in a shouting match about this.

I will be the first to admin that I'm not perfect and I KNOW I have made mistakes in this situation, including a bit of edit warring. That being said, I thought we were past all that and finally working towards a good solution. Happy to address any questions. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest admins take a pass on this one, it's very silly. Here we have one user who wants to deprecate what seems to be the last use of {{Geobox}} on a settlement article (a featured article, as it happens) while another user desires some minor tweaks before the newer {{infobox settlement}} goes live. In the long run it doesn't matter at all how this resolves, both users are already working toward using the infobox and deprecating the geobox, one is just in more of a hurry to get on with it. It does seem to me the editors working on resolving the outstanding issues could do so more efficiently without Zackmann08's obsessive interference, but I've already full-protected the page once because of this nonsense and that's about all I want to have to do with it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: this isn't just about being in a hurry. This is about a user who is insisting things be done his way or not at all. I don't see how my contribution has been obsessive interference and would ask that please back that up with evidence. Myself and Hike395 are the ones actually doing the work while Ɱ is just sitting back and nitpicking every single thing. Additionally the Featured Article status doesn't seem relevant to me. The 50 other FAs about settlements all use {{Infobox settlement}}. It isn't like this is some half baked, brand new Infobox I'm forcing onto the page. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm just asking for some minor changes to the infobox before we roll it out, okay? I generally follow Bold, Revert, Discuss, so we're in the discussion phase; let's not edit war again. We're literally on the cusp of coming to a full agreement with all parties happy here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What you are doing is not "discussing" what you are doing is insisting it be done your way. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

1. tl;dr 2. WP:DR. Ask if you need additional help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't need WP:ANI. It just needs a canvas-board; there are so few participants that there's no distinction between consensus and unanimity. With multiple editors who are opinionated, that can be problematic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Should also be noted that one of the changes that M required now has to be reverted because another user raised numerous issues. Again, they are WP:OWNing instead of actually discussing. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• What this issue would really benefit from is a halt to hostilities at the article, and a fulsome discussion on the template's talk itself. For what it's worth I have been following the discussion since Zackmann08 first brought it to my attention a few weeks ago (just before I protected the page) and up to this point the discussion has been constructive and I've seen no need for an admin (e.g. me) to intervene, which is why I have not participated. I'm disappointed to see it deteriorating now when consensus is so close, and yes I do chalk that up almost entirely to impatience (and I see that several users commenting on the article talk also see it this way). However, the current discussion really only concerns what layout is appropriate for this one article; it stands to reason that some of these changes that are appropriate for one article are going to cause problems with some of the other half-million transclusions. Can I suggest to both users: (courtesy ping @Zackmann08, Ɱ, and Hike395:
  1. replace {{geobox}} with {{infobox settlement}} in the article immediately, since there is indication that keeping geobox in this article is holding up other discussions, and it's generating a large red error message on the page (maybe only for logged-in users, idk); and
  2. continue discussing minor issues with the template at Template talk:Infobox settlement?

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I 100% can agree to that. As I previously stated, I'm not making ANY more changes to that page. Either the article or the talk page. I've basically given myself a personal ban to avoid any chance of a 3RR violation. If there are other tiny changes that are desired for {{Infobox settlement}}, they need to be discussed on the talk page for the template and then can certainly be implemented. M had some good suggestions but as you pointed out, just because they are appropriate for ONE article, doesn't mean we should do them right away. We need to consider the other half-million articles. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This kind of went off the rails since the post here attracted more attention to the article. There's nothing for admins to do at this point, I suggest this be closed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Xayahrainie43

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

---

Xayahrainie43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked but has been repeatedly evading their block by continuing to edit their subpage at User:Xayahrainie43/duodecimal (and lately mucking about with the main sandbox as well, I don't know why), most recently as 175.96.65.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I've nominated this page at MfD, but in the mean time, could someone block this latest IP and maybe watchlist the page since they seem to pop up on new addresses fairly frequently. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. I see that the many other IPs they've used to evade this block have also been blocked for the most part. I've reverted their sandbox to a version prior to all of the block evasion, and semiprotected it indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Ishmailer: time for an indef or a TBan from Liberland

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

---

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

Ishmailer has already been blocked twice in less than a month, for edit-warring on Liberland and then for harassing and stalking two Liberland editors when he didn't get his way. See: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Ishmailer edit-warring across several articles out of spite. Now that his latest block has expired he's at it yet again: [72]. 70% of his article-space edits have been to Liberland, and only to make mass changes without consensus and edit-war over his changes.

Since nothing else is working, it's time for a WP:NOTHERE indef, or at the very least a TBan from Liberland. Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Boing! said Zebedee has just blocked him for 2 weeks, but I honestly do not think this is going to resolve the issue, since he returns to edit-warring after each block expires. Pinging related parties: @Thomas.W, 331dot, Adog, Bellezzasolo, Mr rnddude, and Dlohcierekim:. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I blocked User:Ishmailer solely for a WP:3RR violation (escalated to 2 weeks after the recent 1-week block) before I saw this report, so that is not meant as a solution to any wider problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block, or at a minimum a topic ban on not only Liberland but also all other articles even remotely connected to that article. Ishmailer is a single-purpose account that has now been blocked three times since creating their account a little over a month ago, twice for edit-warring on Liberland and once for personal attacks against, and harassment of, other editors, directly related to the same article. Which in addition to their edits being apparent COI edits, by either someone who is directly connected to the people behind Liberland, or someone who has a financial stake in it (Liberland is a micronation that makes money by selling "citizenship" and passports, passports that aren't accepted anywhere...), shows they're not here to create an encyclopaedia, only to further their own interests. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Involved Comment - Time for an indef or a TBan from Liberland - Taken the words straight out of my mouth, though allow me to add the words "broadly construed" to the TBAN proposal. Their first move was to insert Liberland as a bordering state to both Serbia and Croatia, and then to edit war with me to reinstate it. They received a disruptive editing warning from Vif12vf for their edits to Serbia. I really should have done that myself, I must admit. Thanks for doing so for me Vif. The only other restriction that may work, and this assumes that Ishmailer has constructive contributions to make at Liberland, is an indefinite 0RR restriction. This will require them to make a case for their edits on the talk page, before reinstating any challenged edits. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Here's another disruptive thread: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#User:Mr rnddude. Ishmailer seems to solely be on Wikipedia for disruption (that's evident from his edits and his edit summaries; check his contribs link at the top), so between DE, NOTHERE, and outright trolling, I think this is a very clear case for indef. Softlavender (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• UPDATE: Boing! said Zebedee has unblocked Ishmailer "to enable discussion" [73]. Softlavender (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as an ongoing and unresolvable issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

What are you supporting, Slatersteven? Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Indef, sorry.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block. The trolling is off the chart at this point. Softlavender (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Unblocked. On the condition that they do not edit the article at least until this discussion concludes, I see no preventative need to keep the block and I have unblocked - it should make discussion here easier. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose both, for the time being. The indef block because, well, he's just been unblocked, and the Tban because he has just "promised" a voluntary "keep off Liberland-subjects and [to] accept 0RR". Either he does, and we presumably gain a productive editor in other areas, or he does not, in which case next time it's an auto de fé here. Simples. ——SerialNumber54129 12:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks to Serial Number 54129 and also to Boing! said Zebedee. All I can offer at this point is to keep off the main article Liberland, and avoid creating forks or mentioning it or matters related to it in other articles. I'll also avoid reverting people at all costs. However I will engage talk pages to discuss proposals/differences in opinion and I will also try to achieve on consensuses for future reference. --Ishmailer (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, non-voluntary - the thing about voluntary restrictions is that if the user decides some time later to rescind their self-restriction, we need another thread exactly like this one to decide what to do about it. With a formal sanction it's easy: escalating blocks. Ishmailer is clearly a disruptive presence in this topic area and should be banned from it. Oppose site ban, I don't see the case for it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: The unblock occurred according to those conditions which effectively means yes I am TB'd. Regards. --Ishmailer (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Academic, perhaps, but I don't believe there is actually any policy justification for an administrator acting under their own authority to impose a topic ban in any situation, including as a condition to unblocking a user. We often accept it anyway, so maybe our policy needs to be updated (policies should reflect practice, not the other way around). As it stands currently, bans are sanctions issued by community consensus, or by administrators acting under the fairly regulated authority of the Arbitration Committee in very specific situations. You yourself are a member of the community, and if you're in agreement that this sanction is an appropriate course of action, then there should be no resistance to formally recording it and no difficulty on your part abiding by it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record I oppose a sitewide 0RR restriction. I dislike 0RR specifically, and I also see no point of imposing a sitewide restriction of any kind without evidence of sitewide disruption. And I agree with Softlavender that any topic ban imposed here ought to be a standard topic ban, not something exotic and specially-defined for this case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose indef per ROPE. If Ishmailer can keep to the restrictions voluntarily proposed, there's possibly a solution here. I would propose making the restrictions community sanctions, as follow:

• User:Ishmailer is topic banned indefinitely from Liberland, broadly construed. They may participate on a talk page" in a civil manner
• User:Ishmailer is restricted to WP:0RR indefinitely. This should not be enforced if the revert was clearly unintentional, i.e. incidentally reverted an edit significantly further back in the page history.

I'm personally not a fan of minimum appeal times, so haven't proposed one, but would not oppose to a time up to 6 months. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

FTR Yes I'm ok with the Bellezzasolo proposals. --Ishmailer (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just to note that "topic banned ... broadly construed" and "may participate on a talk page" sounds contradictory, as "broadly construed" is usually taken to mean including talk pages. So I'm not quite sure what you mean. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: To Ishmailer's long list of offences can also be added repeated, totally unsubstantiated, accusations about socking (claiming that Softlavender and possibly also other accounts are socks of mine...). Refusing to retract the accusations after being challenged (see User talk:Ishmailer#Your repeated accusations about socking). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Sour grapes. I haven't got the time right now to collate the clear and prominent evidence that glares to anyone to have examined the dynamics of a handful of accounts. I mean more research needs to be done first in order to fully establish precisely which is the sockmaster and which accounts belong to that person. For example, having looked a the timing of a number of edits, along with the accounts to "suddenly" appear and the manner in which all appear to vote the same way in what is clearly a putsch, I'd say something needs to be investigated, but the biggest issue at hand is that some editors think they are clever and can nail sock accounts yet fail to spot those dancing in their faces. Simple technicalities abound. And yet other editors to have posted here have committed such gross violations of Wikipedia policy but admins are clearly apprehensive about disciplining those with gold-plated reputations, which is why Brownfingers broke the 3rr and got away with it the other week. --Ishmailer (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)}

A comment like that is called "shooting oneself in the foot"... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reminder: Topic ban means banned from talkpage and from mentioning the topic. The user has already demonstrated very clear and repeated trolling and disruptive behavior. There should be no exceptions to the usual TBan terms. Softlavender (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support official, logged, non-voluntary topic ban from Liberland, broadly construed. As a stop-gap from the pattern of disruption and trolling this editor has evinced. Softlavender (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Liberland. If he violated it then he can be blocked. Qualitist (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Keditz

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

---

• Keditz (talk · contribs)

Keditz This new user is a net-negative. Continuous blatant copy vio's, Genre warring. Total disregard to any talk page warnings or blocks. Same problem at Commons, I have also suggested they be blocked there. Seems like it's time to get this users attention with a lengthy block if not indef'd. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't totally disregard it, but if my assumption is correct from what I've witnessed, he appears to believe that these problems aren't as serious as they truly are. With the amount of copyright problems we've had to deal with because of his failure to understand it, he probably should be blocked on Commons at the very least until he learns how copyright works there. Edit: I am not an admin, just thought I'd toss in a comment, if that's allowed...didn't think about it until now. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: I should of been more clear, my "total disregard" is referring to editing patterns, not talk responses. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Keditz does not seem to be "getting it". Their talk page is filled with warnings about unsourced content and genre changes, but there is no change in editing behavior. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

And as of today, Keditz still doesn't get it. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The user's first edit was 5 weeks ago, and he has made 428 edits: [74]. He has an astonishing array of 31 warnings on his talkpage [75], and has been blocked once already. I think he probably needs to come here to this thread and address these editing issues if he is to remain a Wikipedia editor in good standing. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just had this exchange and issued this warning with/to Keditz, which has strangled my last nerve, therefore I am removing myself from any further edits made by this user, I'm not about to get blocked for this ****. Again, Keditz still doesn't get it, I ssuggest @Keditz: comes here and join the discussion or if they choose to ignore the pings, I respectivly ask that this user be blocked. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

FlightTime

• I moved this thread up from the bottom to connect it with the existing thread above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

FlightTime is using aggressive language by saying 'What the hell did my edit summary say ?' which I believe there's absolutely no need to be saying 'hell' in that context when replying back to another user on this website. Please can someone tell FlightTime to stop the aggression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keditz (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Get over it - Life's a bitch and then you die. In between someone's going to say "hell" and "damn" and "shit" and "fuck" to you, maybe multiple people, maybe more than once. Learn to live with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

No comment. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Keditz: how many more of these threads are you going to start to try to get FlightTime in trouble? This is bordering on harassment. Please stop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for merging the threads Ken. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

That I saw that user name here before.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose block for Keditz

• Support minimum one-week block of Keditz, as proposer. Doesn't look like he is "getting it" or even wanting to. Block needed to prevent further disruption. Softlavender (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• They have already been blocked for a week by Floquenbeam. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, thanks for the ping. I meant to post that here and got distracted by something shiny. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Nightscream

The following discussion is closed. 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 warned this user about ownership of pages as well as insulting others in recent months. He unfortunately shows no remorse for such actions and doesn't even address the concerns, dismissively removing such notices with a misleading edit summary of "cleanup" (which most definitely isn't what that removal was), and continues with blatant personal attacks. The most recent attacks I've found since then are here, which were completely unwarranted regardless of content quality. Nightscream has no excuse for his actions and evidently doesn't care that bullying people such as myself is flat out inappropriate on Wikipedia. Frustration with content changes doesn't justify incivility at all. His hostility needs to end. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be an ANI issue. Could you move the thread there? Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think this was placed here by accident. Regardless, I issued a templated final warning: someone with over 100k edits should know better than that. I'm hesitant to block right now, esp. since the comments were from 5 days ago, but they are certainly blockworthy insults. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry for any misplacement, Softlavender. In any case, thank you Drmies for that warning, and I do feel a block would be more than warranted if he keeps this up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well User:SNUGGUMS you know I don't care about anyone's feelings, but I do agree with you on the substance... Drmies (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Understood. I've also left a notice for ANI on this thread. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree that these edit summaries are needlessly aggressive and inappropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Note: This thread was intended to be posted at ANI, and Softlavender moved it here after I accidentally posted to AN at first, so thank you Softlavender for the move). Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that the edit summaries are rather uncalled for. In fact, Nightscream was even blocked once for using summaries like this before. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

As stated by others above, these edit summaries by this user are absolutely unacceptable and this cannot continue. Nightscream, given their tenure and number of edits, definitely knows better than this and I'd expect users with similar experience and tenure be modeling civility and setting the example - certainly not being the subject of discussion over their repeated violations of what we consider a core principle here. I believe that the action taken by Drmies was the appropriate thing to do given the age of the edits in question. The user is on a final warning basis, and any further behavior that violates Wikipedia's civility policies or Wikipedia's policy disallowing personal attacks will be met with a block. Given Nightscream's history and their block record over this issue, a final warning basis is appropriate and fair, and should not come as a surprise to Nightscream should problems continue and administrative action is taken. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just to point out something that is, I believe, obvious to us all: Nightscream has wide latitude on his own user talk page, no action will be taken in respect of edit summaries when removing comments left by someone with whom he is in dispute, unless there's some really egregious violation. I think it is also fair to WP:TROUT both parties for engaging in an edit war over something that lame. I mean: are the South Park kids friends or classmates - this is hardly destined to be one of the great unresolved academic debates that fills symposia for a generation, is it? There is no discussion on Talk (so no WP:BRD) and in fact no evidence of reliabel independent sources for this content, so it's all WP:PRIMARY / WP:SYN anyway. You should both be ashamed of yourselves. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• They indeed should both be ashamed of themselves. We should not tolerate personal attacks like calling another editor's post "stupidity", as did User:Nightscream, especially when they've already been put on notice. For every time we tolerate it, we encourage more of it.Jacona (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox

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

---

Can an administrator please look at this deletion discussion and at the sandbox in question, User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox? The sandbox is a hodge-podge, consisting largely of notes, which are appropriate in a sandbox, and apparently of soapboxing about what may be a plan by User:Mervyn Emrys to name, blame, and shame those who are causing climate change, “Proposal for a Project on a New Doomsday Book for Global Climate Change” or may just be grandiose chatter. User:Guy Macon has proposed to delete it as inappropriate soapboxing, and has already deleted it from User talk:Jimbo Wales and User talk:Larry Sanger. (Knowing that Jimbo Wales intends his talk page to be a free-for-all zone, I think that Guy Macon was out of line in deleting it from Jimbo’s talk page.) User:Mervyn Emrys has requested, in the MFD, that the deletion discussion be put on hold for a case at WP:ANI, but deletion discussions are not put on hold due to ANI filings, and besides, as Guy Macon notes, he hasn’t actually filed at ANI. So I am filing, to say that some administrative attention is clearly needed.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SOAPBOX: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: [...] Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to 'climb soapboxes', Wikipedia is not the medium for this." (emphasis added).

We live in a time when a member of team red sent bombs to a bunch of people on team blue, and a member of team blue tried to murder everyone from team red at a baseball game, and yet Mervyn Emrys proposes that we "compile the names of individuals and their employers who share responsibility for stimulating global climate change... Each named entry will include a brief paragraph describing the role of the individual in stimulating global climate change. This will include individuals managing major energy production industries, such as coal mining and oil production, and major energy utilization industries, such as low miles-per-gallon automobile manufacturers and electric utilities. Most of the information given will be based on the office held by the individual and the role of the employer in the industry." That is a clear case of soapboxing, and if we actually allowed such a list on Wikipedia would be a massive BLP violation.

(Full disclosure: I strongly agree with the current scientific consensus on climate change). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• The “Proposal for a Project on a New Doomsday Book for Global Climate Change” portion is a misuse of Wikipedia. We are not a webhost. It would be better suited for a private website. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not sure exactly what admin action you guys want. What if I leave a talk page message that explains a few key policies? Will that resolve it? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it I do not think they want anything, the user threatened to take this to ANI (used that as a reason to try and (in effect) shut down an AFD) and then did not launch the ANI. Thus I suspect they do not want any action beyond this being closed as NO action (and a warning to the ed to not try and use ANI to shut down AFD's).Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't post this ANI report, but I personally would most definitely want to see a talk page message that explains a few key policies. Besides the obvious (BLP and soapboxing), Mervyn Emrys has been very aggressively attacking me, usually with totally fabricated accusations (example: I reverted with an edit summary of "WP:SOAPBOXING" and no other comment, yet Mervyn Emrys insists that my edit summary contains the word "VANDAL" in red letters. He also claimed that my revert had accidentally removed an unrelated talk page comment by another user. This also never happened, and indeed could not happen unless the "undo" button is broken.) A warning about personal attacks and about posting accusations without evidence would be most helpful. At this point I would oppose any other sanctions. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping to resolve this without sanctions, but Mervyn Emrys keeps escalating the accusations and aggression, finding new places to post them. Clearly he is WP:NOTHERE and needs to be blocked.

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested Administrative Action

I did post this ANI thread. I was, most importantly, requesting that administrators take a look at the MFD, which has been done, and provide any warnings. I was requesting judgment calls as to who needed to be warned, User:Mervyn Emrys, User:Guy Macon, or both. My own opinion was that both editors were at fault, but that it was Mervyn who was completely out of line, and Guy had made a mistake (as most of us sometimes do), but I was deferring judgment. I thought that Guy had made a mistake in deleting a rant from two talk pages that were not his own, in particular from User:Jimbo Wales, whose censorship has been the subject of an ArbCom case. I thought that Mervyn, on the other hand, was, first, engaged in what seemed to be a massive soapbox campaign, along with personal attacks, and with a demonstrably false claim to have filed here, and that Mervyn was trying to squelch the MFD with talk of an ANI thread, when we know that an XFD and an ANI thread about an XFD run in parallel. I see that Mervyn has been given a warning that is consistent with what I thought was in order. That answers that; thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I am puzzled as to why you would think that I did something wrong. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion is quite clear: "This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages." If you think that "advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, opinion pieces, advertising, marketing or public relations" should be allowed to remain if it is posted to someone's talk page, you should work on getting that policy reworded so that someone like me is not accused of wrongdoing for making a good-faith effort to follow what the policy says. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon – You ask why I think that you made a mistake (although, as I noted, a small mistake compared to that of User:Mervyn Emrys). I re-read talk page guidelines twice, and suggest that you re-read it once. Under “Editing Others’ Comments”, the guideline states: “Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.” You removed another editor’s comments, and I do not think that you exercised proper caution, and there has been objection. In particular, the guideline refers to Removing prohibited material and Removing harmful posts. The posts that you removed do not fall into any of the classes of prohibited material, so I assume that you thought that you were removing a harmful post. The post was not a personal attack, trolling, or vandalism. The rule then says:

Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. 

So, what you did was a borderline case, and I think that you made a judgment error, at least with regard to User talk:Jimbo Wales (a chronically controversial page, where a previous effort to remove prohibited material resulted in an ArbCom case). Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because another editor is out of control doesn’t always require cleaning up after them. (I would say not to follow someone else’s dog onto someone else’s property to clean up the dog poop, but someone might object to that language.) I don’t think that the talk page guidelines need to be revised. I think that you (Guy Macon) did make a mistake, although Mervyn Emrys has made a far bigger mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I requested the assistance of an editor per WP:Dispute Resolution, but no action has yet been taken in response to that request, other than perhaps some fact-finding. Apparently some folks are in a big hurry to come after me, for reasons of which I am unaware. What all you folks seem to be ignoring is the indisputable FACT that my original post was a personal message to two other editors requesting advice on a DRAFT proposal that was not yet ready for publication. It was NOT an article edit. And now that I have placed it in my personal sandbox so I can refine it, some of you are attempting to prevent me from doing even that by proposing to delete my sandbox.

There IS a difference between an article edit and a personal communication to another editor for purposes of obtaining advice on a DRAFT proposal. Can you tell the difference? A personal communication requesting advice, provided it is not advertising, is NOT "soapboxing," and one may wonder if communication between editors about ideas is now prohibited on Wikipedia? Jimbo Wales does not appear to think it is prohibited, because he explicitly invites messages be posted on his talk page, which is one of the places my DRAFT proposal was already deleted from. I wonder also if Jimbo is aware that personal messages are being deleted from his talk page without his being allowed to read them?

I think you folks all need to take a deep breath and step back a pace before you get yourselves in deeper than you already are, in terms of WP:Civility. You, and especially User:Guy Macon are missing the mark with all your unwarranted assumptions, suppositions, accusations, insults, and associated incivility. But you are building up an excellent case for WP:Harassment. If you view my communications on talk pages of two other editors as personal messages requesting advice, which they were intended to be, I think you must conclude that there really is no "soapboxing" there. There is nothing there but a request for advice. Or if you prefer, we can ask Jimbo what he thinks. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mervyn Emrys: the first issue here is that your draft proposal, as written, seems to be an attempt to "name and shame" evil-doers. This is incompatible with Wikipedia's purpose. If it matters, I think Guy Macon has been more aggressive than I would have been about removing all mention of it. But I think that's why you're facing so much pushback on this. One way to sidestep the whole issue of "this doesn't belong on Wikipedia"/"I'm just trying to discuss this with Jimbo!" is to email Jimbo directly. Then you won't have to deal with Guy Macon at all. Wouldn't that resolve your primary concern? You wouldn't be able to use Wikipedia to host your project, but there are other ways you can incorporate your ideas into valid encyclopedia articles. For example, Climate change denial, List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming, Individual and political action on climate change, etc. You just can't do this whole "name and shame" thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The first issue here is that of another editor editing Jimbo Wales talk page by deleting my personal message to him there, as invited by Jimbo Wales, without discussion or offer of assistance, or even the courtesy of a question. Your proposal is that the lack of civility, insults on my talk page, being held up to ridicule, bullying, stalking me around Wikipedia, threats and intimidation by one over zealous editor all be ignored and I go elsewhere. Before I was driven off Wikipedia about ten years ago by an administrator who contacted me by uninvited email at my place of employment, Wikipedia policy was that uninvited offsite contacts were prohibited and constituted outing and harassment. Apparently that has changed, unbeknownst to me before I simply attempted to contact two other editors on their talk pages to discuss an idea. Mine was a proper use of a talk page, or else what are talk pages for? So your proposal would basically endorse the behavior of this editor and have me throw in the towel, allowing him to act badly with impunity? How will that improve Wikipedia? I think you need to dream up a more appropriate solution, and you are certainly welcome to try. Meanwhile, please take another look at the trash Guy Macom has posted on my talk page and explain to me why this should be tolerated.Mervyn Emrys (talk):20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's review the facts:When User:Guy Macon discovered my message about a New Doomsday Book, did he assume good faith? No. Quite the contrary, he assumed bad intentions, summarily deleted my message, and aggressively posted insulting reasons for doing so.

Did User:Guy Macon ask if contributions to the New Doomsday Book would be required to abide by WP:BLP or WP:NPOV policies? No. I have assumed edits would have to be consistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV ever since I started thinking about this about ten years ago.

Did User:Guy Macon ask me any questions concerning the nature of my message or the proposal? No. He deleted my message without asking me any questions about it.

Did User:Guy Macon make any suggestions that might make the proposal more palatable or acceptable under WP policies? No. He deleted the message without any attempt at communication or discussion with me.

When I found that my message had been deleted, did I assume good faith? Yes. My reason for reverting the deletion suggested someone might have deleted my message along with another one by mistake, “deleting more than was intended.”

When severely provoked by User:Guy Macon such that I made an inappropriate remark to him in frustration, did I return a short time later and redact those comments “with apologies?” Yes, I did.

Has User:Guy Macon made any apologies for the insults and ridicule he has repeatedly placed on my talk page, in apparent violation of several Wikipedia policies? No. He has not, but keeps adding insult to injury by sneaking into my sandbox, starting proceedings against me for acronyms I don't understand, and stalking me all over Wikipedia, leaving disparaging remarks every place I post a message.

Isn't this a bit much to expect one to ignore? Guy Macon should be sanctioned with a block, not me. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You have been invited to file an ANI case against me several times. I personally doubt that I will be blocked or even warned for doing exactly what WP:SOAPBOXING says to do, but I could be wrong. Re: "acronyms I don't understand", have you tried clicking on them? The page you end up at when you click on WP:SOAPBOXING is very clearly written. (This of course ignores the fact that you seem to have no trouble accessing our policies when you think they are on your side). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As stated above, I opted to request the assistance of an editor instead of filing an ANI case, as recommended at WP:Dispute Resolution. Why are you so eager to have me file an ANI case against you? Earlier you also baited me to file an Arb Com case? Why are you so eager to employ the most extreme option available instead of trying to work this out as recommended at WP:Dispute Resolution? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's indeed "look at the facts":

• The last time I looked your sandbox was well on its way to being deleted as a violation of a number of policies, with not a single comment in its favor - something you perhaps should take as a hint that your understanding of what's allowed to be posted on Wikipedia user pages isn't what you think;
• You're supposedly the holder of a PhD, and yet you seem not to know that "SOAPBOX" is not an "acronym" of any sort, it's an ordinary, everyday English word which is a shortcut, a quick, easily memorable link for getting to the page it's connected to;
• Despite being a PhD, you were unable to ascertain that to understand what a link is about, one simply has to click on the link and read what's there when you get there.
• Contacting an editor at their place of business was not a cool thing to do, and was an invasion of your privacy, but it never was "outing", because the information that admin had about you wasn't published anywhere on or off Wikipedia;
• You can stop kvetching about Guy Macon now - he's not going to be sanctioned for enforcing (perhaps a little over-zealously) our policies;
• If you don't stop kvetching about Guy Macon, and don't file an ANI complaint against him, you may well be in violation of WP:Casting aspersions.

So, in other words, you are in a hole, which you keep digging deeper. Perhaps you should stop doing that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I object to the snarky comments of the editor immediately above in reference to my having a PhD, which appear to be thinly veiled insults against my intelligence in gross violation of WP:Civility. I request you please retract that statement. My reference to acronyms was to "MfB" which I did attempt to click on as suggested by Guy Macon, and nothing happened. But then, you seem adept at taking things out of context. For example, I am incredulous that you folks continue to try and treat a personal message to another editor as if it was an article edit. It's almost as if you are unable to tell the difference between them. But if your cabal wishes to continue digging a deeper hole for yourselves, by all means go right ahead. Oh, and by the way Guy, that pesky "rollover VANDAL" message in red is back on your little indent diff on my talk page. Is it characterizing your edit as vandalism? I would never do such a thing.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the sixth time that Mervyn Emrys has posted something that is not true. The phrase "MfB" is not found anywhere on this page, anywhere in the WP:MfD, or anywhere on his talk page. Once or twice I could explain away as an error, but six times is clearly trolling. (If I am wrong and posted a typo somewhere that I don't know about, make that five times -- still obvious trolling) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"MfB" is not an "acronym", it's an abbreviation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it was actually "MfD" but I guess I should be condemned as a liar for having poor eyesight, in addition to all the other things I've been condemned for by this editor, who recently attempted to wipe his insulting comments from my talk page, in an obvious cleanup operation. Unfortunately, he neglected to delete all the negative comments he has posted on other user's talk pages as he followed me around Wikipedia, and I don't see any effort to clean up this page.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn, that "Rollback VANDAL" message is a function of Wikipedia. It's not something a user has added, it's a function that allows you to "roll back" a user's edit and then warn them about vandalism on their user talk page. This is nothing Guy has done to you, it always displays when you view a diff between two edits. You'll also note there are two other options displayed: "rollback (AGF)" and "rollback." The former lets you roll back the edit while assuming good faith (and leaving a template to that remark), while the latter is a neutral rollback with a neutral message to their talk page.

These functions collectively give you the option to undo a person's edits between the two diffs, and then leave them a message with one of three options: rolling back their changes and leaving them a template that it was done, while assuming good faith on their part; rolling back the edit and leaving a neutrally worded message; or rolling back their changes with a vandalism warning template.

In short, this was nothing to do with an action by Guy. You misinterpreted what is effectively a button that Wikipedia provides you for undoing another person's edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I never suggested User:Guy Macon added the red "rollback VANDAL" note to his edits, but simply stated it was there, for which he promptly called me a liar, saying it was not there. Go figure.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys response to the above was a classic demonstration of the Law of holes: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Your talk page is being edited. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys, in any case, it appears that your "sandbox" page can be deleted as a copyright violation, as it contains the text that it is "not intended for publication...by others." Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license, which you must agree to license material under if you post it on Wikipedia, requires that "publication by others" be permitted. Could you please clarify what you mean by that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware that placing text in my sandbox was the same as "publication," but have been under the impression for some years that a sandbox is more like a workshop where one places text one is trying to improve, provided,of course, that one is allowed an opportunity to do so. You folks do seem to come up with some interesting interpretations of policies. But perhaps privacy and improvement are values no longer embraced by Wikipedia? We shall see.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The above comment (diff) had edit summary "reply to threat of legal action prohibited by WP policies". That raises serious issues because there is no threat of legal action, and the WP:COPYVIO policy is being severely misinterpreted. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

If somebody sends you a message citing legal sources is it a threat of legal action? In the law office I worked in when in middle school that was always interpreted as a threat of legal action. Would it be better to call it "wikilawyering" here?Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys, Directly above the "publish changes" button you clicked on your sandbox page was the following notice:

"By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."

Please remove the "not intended for publication by others" language or the page will be subject to deletion as a clear violation of the terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 License that you agreed to. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. It was deleted at WP:MfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Request block for Mervyn Emrys

Clearly Mervyn Emrys is not going to stop this behavior unless he is blocked.

Here is the latest:[76] Previous:[77][78][79]

The post to my talk page said: "I filed an ANI complaint against the arbitrary and uncivil behavior of Guy Macon yesterday". No. User:Mervyn Emrys has stated that they filed an ANI complaint. They made that statement both on my talk page and in the MFD discussion that was the original subject. However, they never filed a complaint here (at WP:ANI). I filed this complaint, after looking for their ANI complaint and verifying that none had been filed. Either they don't know the difference between referring to an ANI complaint and actually posting one, or they are making statements that are not true, either because they are confused or because they are trying to confuse us. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

[80][81][82][83][84][85]

Please advise whether it would be better for me to file this as a seperate ANI report. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

There has often been a principle to avoid multiple ANI filings that are closely related or to consolidate them. This report is primarily about the conduct of User:Mervyn Emrys. You, User:Guy Macon, had said above that you thought that a warning would be sufficient. Since the warning has not been sufficient, this thread is still about their conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support a block of between 48 hours and one week for general disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Mervyn Emrys: to avoid a block, I suggest you drop this whole "hall of shame" thing. It's not going to work out for you if you try to do this here. We have multiple policies that explicitly prohibit this. I'm also not sure why you're posting complaints about Guy Macon on random user talk pages. If you have a complaint about his behavior, it should be made here. You could argue that Guy Macon has treated you rudely, but what people are trying to tell you is that he is right. What you are trying to do does not belong on Wikipedia. With regard to email, I have no idea what went on years ago, when you say someone contacted you off-site and harassed you. However, using email to contact Jimbo is perfectly fine. Please see User:Jimbo Wales#Contacting me and Wikipedia:Emailing users. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a block at this time. The offending user space page has been deleted and ME has posted a "semi-retired" banner on their talk page, so a block seems unnecessary. This can be revisited if the editor doesn't show signs of having gained some WP:CLUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The user page in question hasn't been edited since 2014, so it would seem that like most "retired"/"semi-retired" statements this is not really a basis for not blocking. (At least it wasn't a deliberate attempt to filibuster this ANI thread like what I've seen from some users in the past.) I'm neutral on what should be done here, but I just figured I should point that out as you seemed to have missed it; not sure if knowing that the "semi-retirement" is not a new thing will change your opinion on the matter, mind you, since I can't fault you on the page having been deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. [please see my revised !vote below]. I'll be honest in saying that, based on the basic misconceptions about Wikipedia's purpose and the necessity of neutrality--and the level of IDHT about same--I have significant doubts about the likelihood that Mervyn will adapt to ultimately become a productive editor who is truly WP:HERE in the way we'd need him to be. He does indeed seem to be here primarily to use the project as a platform for his own polemic projects, rather than to build an encyclopedia. That said, I don't see a pattern of established disruption sufficient to warrant a block at this time; skepticism put to the side, it's entirely possible that now that the MfD was unanimously supported and closed on a WP:SNOW rationale, he receives the message and will try a hand at more conventional editing, and I have not seen a compelling argument to not afford him that chance.

But Mervyn Emrys, you're definitely going to want to do some reading if you see yourself staying here to edit conventional arrticles, and I suggest starting with WP:WWIN, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTHESIS; Wikipedia editing requires that you prioritize objectivity in your approach to content, while the kind of polemics you have tried to pursue here thus far suggest you are embracing an editorial philosophy that is nearly the exact opposite of that. You're going to have to work fast to change the tone of your contributions if you want to volunteer your time here. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I am OK with waiting longer to see if he stops the behavior on his own if that's the consensus, but prefer a block. I have been around long enough that this sort of thing is only a mild annoyance to me. The downside of waiting is that we will be leaving a ticking time bomb that is likely to blast some other editor, and a disruptive user emboldened by getting away with it this time.

In order to make it more likely that he stops, as of now I will stop interacting with him outside of ANI (and Arbcom, if it comes to that, which I doubt). --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Warn and wait. If he decides to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man we can then block him per that policy. Kudos to Guy Macon for the comment above: yes, also WP:ROPE. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support block. This editor has serious problems which add up to DE and CIR. Right now he is on a campaign of WP:CANVASSING: [86]. Also, he claims to be an experienced Wikipedian (has nearly 3,000 edits), but look at this bizarre post to WP:Articles for deletion/Acid Rain Retirement Fund: [87]. He has received dozens of notices, pieces of advice, and warnings on his talkpage, but doesn't seem to have learned from them: [88]. He needs to assure us that he will carefully learn and abide by Wikipedia norms and cease creating disruption. If not, I'm afraid the CIR issues are too great. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I just went through a couple of years of edit history. For at least ten years Mervyn Emrys has been getting into fights with other editors, accusing them of stalking, showing a detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines when someone else violates them, then expressing a complete ignorance of the same policies when he violates them -- claiming that they are too complex to understand. If anyone needs diffs proving this, I can compile them. "I will say this: your current approach is not working. You may think the reason it's not working is because Guy is keeping an eye on you, but it's the reverse case: He's keeping an eye on you because your approach isn't working. Take heed."[89] (I have stopped interacting with him except on ANI). --Guy Macon (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing those diffs, Guy; I've been interacting, in the tiny little bit of time I have to edit this week, with them, trying to inch them towards more productive approaches. If he is feigning incomplete knowledge of our processes, I'd like to know that before I invest any more time in explanatory comments. But honestly, though I may need to eat these words after seeing diffs, I'm not sure your read is correct on that: what other explanation than lack of familiarity with our processes would explain why he would go to Xavexgoem expecting assistance against you?

On the other hand, even if it isn't a convoluted fake-out, much of the problematic conduct may point to a WP:CIR problem significant enough to justify a block or topic ban. The ill-advised canvassing (which the experienced editors it was directed at either ignored and responded with warnings to) seems to have abated now, and hopefully Mervyn will accept what others have been trying to tell him about this being the appropriate space to discuss the conduct issues arising out of this situation. I've advised him further that he should consider learning the ropes here by first editing in areas that do not intersect with his apparent professional expertise / personal passions--that it would be better for the purposes of learning to prioritize our content policies (which often ask us to set-aside, or accept incongruities in our content with, our personal understanding of the "truth") if he was not working areas that mean so much to him. This would have the added benefit of demonstrating for those concerned about his objectives, that he is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, and not to leverage an encyclopedia's platform for a passion project.

We'll see if he finds any value in my advice and follows it; right now, his only content-facing edits are concerned with another environmental policy topic, defending one of his earlier articles from an AfD. Which, fair enough--nobody likes to see their work undone, and this article has been live for ten years (though apparently with copyvio issues for much of that time), so I wouldn't expect him to give it up without making an effort to preserve it. But after that, I would hope to see a chance in priorities. For one, the fact that he continues to litigate the issues surrounding the "Doomsday Book" could just mean that he has his druthers up about feeling "harassed", or it could mean that he is continuing to push the issue because he wants to be free and clear to continue trying to sell the idea across talk space. The question of whether or not the latter would be permissible is actually still an open one--we know how Guy feels about it, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. I know for a fact that this is a WP:SNOW issue and that such a project is never going to happen--or, if it did happen, it would be at some future date where Wikipedia had become something unrecognizable from what it is today. But I'm not sure Guy did the right thing in deleting those talk page posts; I would have rather had the editors they were directed towards join us in what we have all been telling Mervyn. Discussion is the heart of this project, and much content that is impermissible in itself under WP:SOAPBOX (or any other provision of WP:NOT) is still something that may need to be discussed, in the abstract, in talk spaces, if only for the purposes of convincing someone to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

None of which is meant to criticize Guy's good-faith conduct on the whole, or to give wind to the sails of Mervyn to re-launch their campaign on this issue. Quite the contrary, I agree with Softlavender that Mervyn is going to need to assure us that he is prepared to drop that matter. I would like to propose to Mervyn that the uniform opposition he is facing to his proposal indicates that he is failing to understand something fundamental about this project and its goals, and that, at a minimum, he needs to spend a lot more time working on this project, in a WP:HERE capacity, before he is in a position to properly analyze his proposal's appropriateness for this project--even when it comes to so much as putting it up for consideration from other editors. If he can assure us that he will take such an approach in educating himself to our norms in order to gain perspective on this, I maintain my position that we should give him WP:ROPE--if he can't, I may have to revisit my !vote. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I am listening very carefully to the places where editors I respect are telling me that I could have done things differently. Normally I would immediately respond with an indication that I get it and will adjust my future behavior, but right now that feels like feeding ammunition to a sniper who is firing on me. I will most likely talk more on this some time later, but I am paying attention to the advice I have been given.

In what may be another ill-advised attempt to stop the ongoing personal attacks, I noticed that Mervyn Emrys's latest flame said "He [Guy] also said some things he should not have said, which were decidedly uncivil, but did not redact them. Some remain on my talk page". So I redacted them from his talk page.[90] He restored them without leaving an edit comment.[91] Should I take another shot at it, this time marking my comments with <s>...</s>, or should I just drop the stick? That horse really isn't looking too good and I am thinking that beating it some more might not convince it to not be dead...

I have started compiling a list of diffs showing the pattern of behavior that I think I see. This might take a while; I have other real-life commitments. Of course the problem is that I cannot trust my own judgement on this, so I am thinking of temporarily posting them to my userspace, inviting others to look them over, and removing anything that any veteran editor concludes is not as solid as I think it is. Good idea? Bad idea? Should I go straight to ANI with it instead, with a disclaimer that I am no doubt biased? Please advise. (To all: Please don't keep this open waiting for those diffs; if this would have been closed otherwise, pretend that I didn't mention it). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think your initial instinct is the correct one; at this stage, best to avoid engaging in any form in any space. It's not required of you, as I don't see anyone here who has suggested you need to back off, but since that was your first impulse anyway, I will say that I think it is a healthy/helpful one. So as to your question there, I'd allow Mervyn to retain whatever version of the talk page he prefers, though I will also note for Mervyn that if he believes the comments were inappropriate, allowing you to strike them would probably be helpful, as a first step to resolving your differences of opinion, without anybody needing to explicitly own up to blame. Regarding the diffs, policy does allow you to host them for short-term aggregation in a sandbox, but I have to think it's just as easy to keep track of them without publishing them here, and often this is the least inflammatory approach, especially if you are not sure if you are going to have time to post them in an organized fashion to this discussion before it closes. Just my take. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, your report might have had credibility had you not violated WP:TPO by removing 13 of your own comments from Mervyn Emrys's talkpage [92]. In addition, banning him from your own talkpage while repeatedly haranguing him on his own talkpage is not collegial behavior. You are not a neutral or disinterested party when it comes to Mervyn Emrys, and my advice would be to drop the stick and let uninvolved editors analyze the situation, with actual diffs/evidence. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Alas, Mervyn Emrys has now decided that editing my comments on his talk page (which he would not let me delete) is appropriate behavior, despite WP:TPOC and WP:INTERSPERSE. I reverted his edits to my comments. refrained from responding other than removing the changes he made to my comments. While I was there, I struck my comments that he has been complaining that I "refuse to redact". If he edits my comments again, I request an immediate block for violating a bright line rule after being warded not to. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Mervyn Emrys has not edited any of your comments on your talk page, much less violated a bright line or done anything blockable. If you believe he has, please provide the diff and the policy. I have gone through every single edit he made to his talkpage since you started editing there, and he has not changed the text of any of your posts. At this point I think you need to back away before you receive a two-way IBan with the editor. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that was certainly fast, including a massive cleanup of my talk page by User:Guy Macon, removing some (but not all) of the nasty things he said about me there, and the following edit I made in response to a list of diffs he provided:

   (For those following along at home, see[8][9][10][11][12][13].)

This is an impressive list of diffs, but mostly just different versions of the same two personal communications you deleted from talk pages of Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger. The edit at #9 is not my edit, so I don't know why you included it. Padding?Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC) And please note that pesky red rollover VANDAL tag I mentioned so long ago, to which you responded that I was a liar, is on the last diff in the list above, #13. So maybe I was not lying after all, hmmmmnnn? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

However, I still haven't seen any apologies from Guy, just his scrubbing of my talk page. Guy, please stay off my talk page in future, unless you wish to apologize. Your self-serving edits are not welcome there. Let's keep the record unchanged.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I will be glad to stay off your talk page as long as you don't edit my words. "Editing my words" includes inserting your own comments, signed or unsigned, in the middle of my comments, changing the wording or punctuation, removing striking that I added, or any other change. See WP:TPOC and WP:INTERSPERSE. (You are free to delete other people's comments from your own talk page, but you are not allowed to edit them.) Editing other user's comments on any page is a blockable offense, no matter what your other behavior has been. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The rather innocuous post in question consist of:

(For those following along at home, see[93][94][95][96][97][98].)

Pretty tame for the huge number of complaints Mervyn Emrys has posted about it. I'm just saying.

I had previously corrected the typo Mervyn Emrys talks about above ("The edit at #9 is not my edit") Not my fault that he edited my comment to re-insert the typo.

Does anyone else see the word "VANDAL" in the diff Mervyn Emrys calls "#13"? I know that I never wrote that word, because I have never seen Mervyn Emrys vandalize any page, and I don't see that word when I look at or word search the diff. Either there is a bug in Wikipedia's software (maybe on mobile?), Mervyn Emrys is lying, or we have a severe WP:CIR problem here. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what Mervyn Emrys means by a "pesky red rollover VANDAL tag" or "to which you responded that I was a liar". A red "rollback VANDAL" is a revert option on tools such as Twinkle, but Mervyn Emrys has never used Twinkle or any other (semi)automated tool that I can see. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys, you posted about the red rollback VANDAL link more than four days ago on this thread [99], and it was thoroughly explained to you at that time. Why are you bringing it up here yet again? Do you want to actually get yourself indef blocked? That is what happens to editors who repeat BATTLEGROUND behavior time and time again. If you respond to this question by blaming Guy Macon, that will be further proof that you are here to battle and not to build an encyclopedia. The best thing to do at this point would be to withdraw from this entire ANI discussion completely, because at this time there does not seem to be a consensus to block you, but that could easily change if you continue battling. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we have a larger problem here. The same link Softlavender posted above also said "My reference to acronyms was to "MfB" which I did attempt to click on as suggested by Guy Macon, and nothing happened". I looked at all of the pages where it might have been and did a text search for "MfB", thinking that I might have made a typo that needed to be corrected. Nothing. I even checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/MfB to see if anyone on Wikipedia has ever wikilinked to MfB. Nope. _{[edit: well now there is, because I just posted a wikilink to MfB...]}(WP:MfB exists, but would not have caused the described "I attempted to click on it and nothing happened" behavior.)

This is a cause for concern. Mervyn Emrys regularly posts accusations that have no basis in reality. Is he lying, hoping that nobody will check and that everyone will just assume that the other editor did what Mervyn Emrys claims he did? Does he actually believe that the "VANDAL" and "MfB" exist because he is hallucinating them? Is he just trolling us? If so, can we trust someone who sees things that are not there to edit Wikipedia?

I am imagining him unloading on a new editor the way he unloaded on me, a veteran editor who has been around long enough to be rather bored by internet flamers and trolls. There is a concept from the age of sail called the "loose cannon". in a battle, and incoming cannon ball can knock a cannon loose. You then have a couple of thousand pounds of steel rolling back and forth crushing people -- and it is still lit and eventually fires in some random direction. I suspect that Mervyn Emrys is a loose cannon.

Of course the possibility exists that I simply missed something when I searched and am about to be embarrassed by someone posting diffs showing the "VANDAL" and "MfB". Or that there some bug or other technical explanation for why he is seeing things that apparently nobody else can see. If so, I will apologize, but I did my good-faith best to find them and failed.

Finally, I cannot resist responding to the claim "But if your cabal wishes to continue digging a deeper hole for yourselves, by all means go right ahead" claim in the same diff. There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Look, Guy, I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but I think it's time to face up to the fact that any inertia that would have lead to some result other than Mervyen being warned has been lost. Only two editors support the block, with two opposes (though my remains a very weak oppose and a little bit weaker every time Mervyn posts). The thread has now grown to that length where respondents become hesitant to enter the discussion, and that hesitance is likely to be even further pronounced by the fact that the formatting here is not exactly neat (that's largely due to Mervyn as well, and is actually some decent evidence that he does indeed struggle with the technical side of things) and because the posts have tended to run a little long in this instance. Unless an admin decides to review and block Mervyn's behaviour on their own initiative (unlikely at this point), I don't see how continued discussion of the same past behaviour is productive, and I'd just as soon not have you wasting your time.

And I get it--the old behaviour stays relevant because he repeats those references. But even if I switched my !vote, that would still just make three of us urging a block and that's just not enough for a community sanction. After numerous of us trying to deliver the same messages, Softlavender seems to have managed to reach Mervyn with the point that he will be shooting himself in the foot if he comments further here, and he's pledged to drop the project which was the underlying source to this conflagration. While I'm grateful that you noticed and arrested that multi-core-policy-violating attempt a polemics, I don't think there's much more to be done here and the present time, and any further discussion that might have a chance of bringing further scrutiny of Mervyn will also magnify any criticism of your own conduct beyond the level of criticism that it deserves. I think it's time to let this one go and see what Mervyn does with his WP:ROPE. If he does indeed engage in behaviour with others that continues to suggest he may be trying to game the system, it will be obvious enough and we can start fresh with a new complaint, and he will have exhausted any AGF for his second go around--and the same will be true if he just has competency issues that can't be brought under control. In any event, I think the productive utility of this thread is toast at this point, and the best thing to do will be to someone close it with a warning or just let it be archived. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Good advice. Unwatching all pages associated with this now (including ANI, which i only watch when something involves me). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm supposed to edit in chronological order, although that makes my reply to Softlavender way out of place relative to that editor's question above. First let me say that I NEVER accused another editor of posting the word VANDAL in red on any diff--I merely noted that there had been one, which he denied, and then proceeded to call me a liar--several times--on my talk page. Am I to understand now that I am not to be allowed to refute his insults with actual proof that such a label did appear on one of the diffs for deletions he made? That is, are you interested in hearing only one side of the story, or are you neutral? The evidence is in a diff provided by the editor who called me a liar, originally marked #13 in a row of repetitive diffs he provided, and then provided again by the same editor renumbered as diff #37 ( think) above. The original diff #13 also appears on my talk page, a few lines below the stop sign with the hand in it, and just before that editor started repeatedly calling me a liar on my talk page. Applying WP:AGF I assume this was a mistake, but one which led to repeated insults on my talk page which, I believe, are violations of WP:Civility. So, am I now to be punished for defending myself by bringing this information to light? Moreover, after being warned not to do so, the same editor has now returned to my talk page, leaving yet another inflammatory edit accusing me of disruptive editing. I have never edited his words, preferring instead to allow them, in meaning and in tone, to speak for themselves. If I have edited at what some consider inappropriate locations, I apologize for the error, which was stimulated by a desire to reply as near to the edits I was replying to as possible, recognizing that some edits here are quite long. My bad, I guess, but not a product of bad motives, I hope one may agree. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You are not being "punished", Mervyn Emrys, but you are likely going to be blocked for disruptiveness, refusal to listen, and abject cluelessness. I told you that the red VANDAL link had, five days ago, been thoroughly explained to you, yet here you are a third or fourth time on this page yammering about it in a manner which makes it very clear you neither heard nor comprehended anything that was explained to you. At this point, the Wikipedia community generally cuts its losses by indef blocking someone for lack of competence, because if something simple has been clearly explained to someone a number of times and they still do not understand it, and they still bring the issue up disruptively again and again, that is too much of a drain on the community of editors who are trying to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I listened to, understood and accepted your explanation of the technical aspects of how the red rollover VANDAL tag gets put on some reverts. But do you understand that I just gave the other editor WP:AGF by suggesting that he may have inadvertently posted insults and other uncivil comments on my talk page as a result of his making a little (possibly forgivable) mistake in looking for such a tag on the wrong diff? This was not a criticism of him, but merely an attempt to stimulate a little understanding of how we got here. To repeat: apparently I mentioned the red tag in passing, he went looking for it in the wrong place, did not find it there, and started calling me a liar on my talk page. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. FACT: I did not lie. The red tag is still there, but on a different diff than the one he looked at. And that little misunderstanding led to all this drama. Your explanation was incomplete because you did not discover this little fact.

You need not insult me with accusations of presumptuousness. You seem to have forgotten the only other time I mentioned this was in the context of comments by Jimbo Wales to the effect that one reason civility is important is because incivility causes editors to leave Wikipedia, and that harms Wikipedia. His idea, not mine. So why is it good when he says it, and bad when I say it? I know nobody here cares if I stay--you have all made that abundantly clear in the one-sided comments posted here and elsewhere, including some thinly veiled--and not so thinly veiled--but uncivil suggestions that I leave. Yet you threaten me with an indefinite block?

I repeat: In the spirit of WP:AGF, I was giving Guy Macon the benefit of the doubt as a gesture of conciliation, and you stuck your foot in it.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a tag, and it's not part of the diff or "on" the diff. It's a revert option on various semi-automated wiki tools or permissions such as Rollback or Twinkle, and (among other clickable revert options) can be clicked to revert a diff. Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, whatever you wish to call it is fine with me. I meant it in a generic, popular sense, not in any WP jargon sense. Let's not get into semantics about it, we are already so far into the weeds that most everybody appears determined to kill the messenger rather than take a step back in favor understanding how we got here. Nobody posting here seems to think the lack of civility that is so obvious all over my talk page has any relevance to the explanations I have attempted to provide here.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The point that SL is trying to make to you is not a matter of mere nomenclature; you are still fundamentally misunderstanding that which you saw. The word "VANDAL" appeared automatically next to your edit as a function of the system that lists revision histories--no person, neither Guy nor anybody else, acted to place it next to your edit. And as such, neither did Guy look in the wrong place for it; he would not have looked for it in any diff whatsoever. So your attempt to excuse "his" mistake as a gesture of good-faith amounts to gibberish; you've been repeatedly framing yourself as someone who made a conciliatory gesture to someone else over their mistake, when in fact they never made any such mistake. Clearly we can make allowances for a good-faith mistake on your part, but when we have to explain these matters over and over to you--and at each step of the way, you become more and more inclined to accuse other experienced editors of exercising a lack of due diligence in investigating and analyzing the situation, and implying bad faith and leaps to judgement--this becomes as a basic competency issue, which you have displayed not just with regard to these technical details, but also in your approach to content policies. Did Guy come on a little strong here? Maybe so, it's hard to say at this point. What is clear is that it seems likely that A) his ultimate frustration is defensible in light of your inability to parse the basic facts and community standards he had to explain to you repeatedly, and B) it was likely you would have responded poorly to scrutiny even if he had approached you with an ultra-civil approach, given how you have responded to editors in this thread, owing to your own confusion about what is going on.

Beyond all of this, there's just a pronounced problem with your inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK; you've been told several times here that all you probably needed to do to avoid a block or other sanction was to just let matters go and be more careful moving forward, but you repeatedly have shown you are incapable of doing that, and that you must prevail at all costs in this discussion and be vindicated as the victim here. Which just isn't going to happen, because you are the one at fault for creating this hullabaloo and for the numerous miscommunications that have occurred during it. I was the community member most inclined to extend you some WP:ROPE on this, despite misgivings about your ability to understand the changes in your conduct that needed to take place. But after your latest attempts at burden-shifting and implicating someone else for your difficulties, I can't continue to do that. We have to do a cost-benefit analysis in a case such as this, and the monstrous amount of community effort that has been consumed here trying to address what should have been simple matters to clear up (if you were WP:HERE for appropriate purposes and open to guidance from your fellow editors) makes it almost impossible to accept that you are likely to become a net-positive to our efforts in building the encyclopedia. I'm sorry, I hope you can believe that this all said not out of a desire to tear you down, but to be blunt about the facts. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No chance. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request block for Guy Macon This is a request for a block against User:Guy Macon for numerous violations of WP:Civility on my talk page and elsewhere. Please allow me to make one thing absolutely clear: The draft proposal for a New Doomsday Book on Global Climate Change is dead and will NOT reappear in Wikipedia by my hand. MY comments on this matter, which have been so blithely ignored by all and sundry, have from the beginning focused on CONDUCT issues, not content issues. Please recall the following indisputable facts, for which there are ample diffs: When User:Guy Macon discovered my message about a New Doomsday Book, did he assume good faith? No. Quite the contrary, he assumed bad intentions, summarily deleted my message, and aggressively posted insulting reasons for doing so. Did User:Guy Macon ask if contributions to the New Doomsday Book would be required to abide by WP:BLP or WP:NPOV policies? No. I have assumed edits would have to be consistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV ever since I started thinking about this. Did User:Guy Macon ask me any questions concerning the nature of my message or the proposal? No. He deleted my message without asking me any questions about it. Did User:Guy Macon make any suggestions that might make the proposal more palatable or acceptable under WP policies? No. He deleted the message without any attempt at communication or discussion with me. When I found that my message had been deleted, did I assume good faith? Yes. My reason for reverting the deletion suggested someone might have deleted my message along with another one by mistake, “deleting more than was intended.” When severely provoked by User:Guy Macon such that I made an inappropriate remark to him in frustration, did I return a short time later and redact those comments “with apologies?” Yes, I did. Has User:Guy Macon made any apologies for the insults and ridicule he has repeatedly heaped on my talk page, in apparent violation of several Wikipedia policies, esp. WP:Civility? No. But recently he attempted to scrub the record by removing some of those items from my talk page, with no apologies whatever. Yet he has not removed similar comments from the talk pages of several other editors that he made while following me around all over Wikipedia, leaving disparaging remarks every place I posted a message. Following me around is fine, but leaving those messages appeared calculated to make my editing here unpleasant, and undermine my relationships with other editors.66.129.50.64 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC) [Procedural note: I first responded to this comment when it was under the subthread above; I may have phrased my advice a little differently had I known it would be moved under a subheader suggesting Guy Macon be blocked, since I agree with the hatting editor that this is a non-starter).] I'm glad to hear you say explicitly that you won't pursue that concept--I think that will assuage concerns here considerably. As to your concerns with Guy's conduct, I will say this: AGF is a two-way street. The two thirds of your post note your frustration and not being given the benefit of the doubt or the ability to represent that you have perspective, and then you end by making several very particular accusations which presume a calculating, bad-faith motivation on Guy's part. To an extent, I feel you two are talking past eachother. You also have fundamental differences of opinion on some things, but I think this is more a case of miscommunication between the two of you than anything. But there are differences between your positions: on the editorial/content matters, Guy's perspectives are much closer to the community consensus. And he's also an experienced and respected editor; that doesn't count for everything, of course--he could still be wrong--but as a matter of realism, I have to tell you that I don't see him facing condemnation from his fellow editors here. I'm a bit of a stickler for civility, but even I can't feel motivated to give him more than a few half-concerned words over the matter here. Because you really were way out on the dark without a torch on the underlying proposal. So, fair or not, your conduct is likely to come under deeper scrutiny because you were promoting a fringe editorial notion (even if it was innocently and in good faith), and that makes you seem a little under-developed as an editor--which will in turn make editors reviewing this matter inclined to see his response as at least partly defensible from frustration, if they are even inclined to find fault at all. So my advice is thus: you seem willing to concede that you may have made mistakes, so long as you are approached respectfully. Your explanation and conduct thus far give me enough reason to hope you can understand the need to separate objective editing from activist editing, and that you'd like to continue your renewed involvement on the project for purposes of the former. There have been some lingering concerns from other editors here, but not enough that I think this discussion is likely to closed with a sanction or community action beyond some words of warning, if it ends soon. So I would advise just trying to move on. Guy has committed to not commenting further outside this ANI with regard to your conduct, and I would strongly urge you to do the same. If that happens, I suspect this will blow over. It would help even further if you two can come to a meeting of the minds, but I suspect it will suffice if nobody comments further in such a way as to up the ante. That said, I really continue to urge you to expand your editorial horizons for the short-term, so as to limit the liklihood that your next wave of edits will set off further concerns (Guy will not be the only editor you will meet here who will apply the precautionary principle to content that looks polemic). Snow let's rap 00:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Sorry, my last edit was interrupted by the "dreaded blue screen." The conduct issues I refer to include violations of the following: "Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project."Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions."Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC) WP:Civility: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates...Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians." This includes deleting personal messages from talk pages of Jimbo Wales in a high-handed manner, without question or discussion, possibly in violation of a previous ArbCom decisions referenced by other editors. And now we learn this user is researching my previous edit history so he can present HIS version of several years of constructive edits, which of course will be selective to serve his misbegotten agenda. Well fine, if he has a vendetta or lacks self control, let's elevate this to arbitration and see if his behavior is acceptable there. As I said to Snow, I don't need to edit in Wikipedia, and if editing here fails to receive an even-handed, civil response, I can find other things to do, and Jimbo might think that is Wikipedia's loss, not mine. I've had enough of this crap.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Wow. That reduced my enjoyment of Wikipedia by 3.1%![100] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Well, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so you'll have to run your own cost-benefit analysis on whether or not to stay. But honestly, you've said that more than once now, and it begins to give the impression that you presume that your value as an editor and net-positive to our efforts on the project is a given. And while I personally, as a collaborative principle, always try to assume any new editor brings a benefit to the project (I just think its the logical extension of AGF; call it "assume good benefit") I have to say there is also something a little presumptuous in the way you keep saying that, as if our default should be consternation at the thought of your departure. I don't think Guy would be likely to lose sleep over your deciding not to edit, and others here have expressed more concern than support over your contributions so far. While I personally think it is a shame any time an editor feels they have to leave the project because it was not as civil an environment as they expected, the story here is not as simple as you being "met with harassment at the door" as you have framed it. So while I don't want to discourage you from staying, I will say that I think you will be waiting a while of you are wanting someone to say it would be a travesty if you left. I have faith that you can be a more productive than disruptive editor, but I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that is who are you are as of this point in your time with us. You still clearly have a lot to learn, including in regard to some very basic editorial principles. I do want you to stay, but I gotta tell you, I'm not sure doubling down on the contest of wills with Guy is the best way to assure that happens. I'm not saying his conduct has been utterly unimpeachable, but at this point, I genuinely think you gain more than you give by trying to let this go. Snow let's rap 01:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support an indef block, given Mervyn's repeated IDHT and CIR issues throughout this thread. Enough is enough. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• End this. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support block. Alright, at this point I can't keep advocating for WP:ROPE and I'm rescinding my previous "weak oppose" !vote; it was already an extremely questionable proposition that this editor was going to convert to WP:HERE motivations and consistency with our editorial and behavioural norms, if given the opportunity, and in face of the continuing flagrant WP:IDHT, inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and pronounced issues with basic competency (regarding both simple editing mechanics and appropriate approaches to discussion), I'm afraid the cost-benefit analysis has become pretty stark. In short, I don't see much chance that this editor is presently capable of contributing non-disruptively--nor indeed capable of even interacting with their fellow editors without misinterpreting the nature of their concerns and ascribing malicious intent where good-faith advice is offered on how they would need to adapt their approach. At this point, we've exhausted all allowance and effort that the community can be reasonably expected to make in circumstances such as this. If Mervyn would like to spend some time over the next six months to a year studying our policies and how this project works, he can always apply to resume editing through the WP:Standard offer. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:JzG

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

---

There have been many protracted discussions in Talk:Sci-Hub over the content and word usage in the article such as on accusation of fraud and wrong-doings, e.g. in Talk:Sci-Hub#Facts in plain English, and ethics, Talk:Sci-Hub#Framing the RfC and Talk:Sci-Hub#Problematic wordings. It became difficult due to many instances of using words such as fraud based on what are primary and non-neutral sources, and appear to violate WP:NWP:NPOV and WP:V. User:JzG however choose to concentrate throwing accusation at me instead of discussing the issues raised - [101] [102] [103]. Despite being asked to focus the issue instead of on me [104][105], the same accusation continues, with the expectation that his fellow admins would agree with him - [106]. I was accused of having a long history of POV edits there (I made only three edits in the article) when I mainly edited in the talk page, raising my concerns over the use of words there. Raising issues of neutrality and verifiability of the article content in the talk page is apparently considered POV-pushing. The discussion is getting difficult due to the many instances of problem wordings involved, I would rather not having it derailed to focus on me. I also don't mind if someone independent can examine the content and wording of the article. Hzh (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I should note that the earliest of those diffs follows on Hzh presuming to have established consensus for an edit he proposed to make, simply because he had talked over or ignored what opposition it saw from User:Jytdog, the "history of POV-pushing" thing is not as unreasonable as Hzh makes it seem with his "I made only three edits in the article", since he's edited the talk page 137 times, and Hzh's response, which had nothing whatsoever to do with content but was focused entirely on somewhat hypocritically asking JzG to "focus on content", was no better. Is a boomerang in order here? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I made it clear that my edits are in the talk page, and they are about my concerns with neutrality and verifiability. You would actually need to show that there has been long term POV-pushing, if there had actually been any -.I only mentioned Jytdog in relation to something he had not objected, and proposing to fix some of the problematic wordings where no one had objected to my concerns, and was waiting for response before actually doing anything. How is it POV-pushing when it is something no one had objected? (JzG then objected but gave no reason apart from throwing accusation at me.) Hzh (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Loking at it, you have edited that Talk page an awful lot, including launching an RfC that had to be withdrawn because it was non-neutral. So maybe JzG has a point. WP:CPUSH is a thing you know. Alexbrn (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The RfC was actually a result of a comment by JzG [107], claiming that I should not demand proof that something is "fraudulent" because it is blindingly fucking obvious, an astonishing statement for anyone to make, let alone an admin, when making an accusation in a Wikipedia article. It was abandoned because it was impossible to phrase it without getting only one conclusion, simply because of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Who is pushing a POV here, me who demanded evidence on an accusation of something being fraudulent, or someone who claimed it should be described as "fraudulent" because it is blindingly fucking obvious with no proof being offered? Hzh (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no. This is a precarious path to resolving a content dispute, no matter how others phrase it, the recommendation is to withdraw the post here and reconsider how to improve that content. cygnis insignis 04:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

But can an admin ignore the fundamental Wikipedia policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV, and accuse anyone who asked for proof as being "POV-pushing"? It is difficult to discuss when no argument has been presented apart from making accusation. (I'll be off to bed, so will continue this discussion or decide what to do next tomorrow). Hzh (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean Sealioning -- a more-accurate term for what you're doing on the talk page there? --Calton | Talk 05:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Because you in effect accused me of trolling, I think I should reply before I go to bed. It is easy to provide RS that proves someone has been shown to have committed a legal offence. The discussion why the sources are inadequate is in the talk page. If it is hard to give actual proof, then you should not make such accusation in a Wikipedia article. It's what WP:V is there for. If anyone feels the need to throw more accusations against me, I'll deal with them tomorrow. Hzh (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hzh: You realize that it was you who chose to open this ANI thread, and the longer it drags out the more likely it is to end in a WP:BOOMERANG, right? You can potentially save yourself a lot of trouble by simply striking everything you have written and moving on with building the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Because you in effect accused me of trolling

No, I haven't. I was -- and given your answer, am now -- accusing you of attempting to bludgeon your way into getting your way with your constant demands for -- and constant dissatisfaction with -- answers. And no, I don't think I'll participate in your game, and just point anyone interested to your long, repetitive demands on the talk page. --Calton | Talk 10:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The answer is, again, yes and no. I haven't looked at the article or talk for the subject of dispute, tempting though it is to form an opinion, I am just advising that this post going stale is a solution. Any other course skirts drama, which is bad, this all anyone can do:

The other user, surly and surely correct JzG, is hereby advised that the unnecessary use of the intensifiers, in general, makes other editors uncomfortable in all sorts of peculiar ways. Additionally, it is hereby noted that further transgressions, obviously of a similar nature to this "blindingly fucking" thing repeated twice above, will result in this user issuing a formal admonishment to said user, for what it is worth, to bloody well knock it off. Can a lovely admin tidy up and close this now? cygnis insignis 08:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: That advice is, in this context, pretty terrible, as it encourages WP:CPUSH. An admin closing based on your reading of the situation would, in that context, be a terrible idea, and would totally contradict the points made by a number of editors in a recent high-visibility RFC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Seemed like a solution. What would you prefer as an outcome, User 88? cygnis insignis 09:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I, for one, would hope you would not continue to offer bad advice utterly unconnected from context. --Calton | Talk 10:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I only consider myself advised in this instance, not admonished, at least I hope not. Thank you for your service. cygnis insignis 12:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"Close this trainwreck. OP is warned that frivolous ANI filings may lead to repercussions, and that their actions are now subject to more scrutiny than they were previously."

... would suit me just fine. Although honestly at this point I'd rather keep this thread open at least long enough for User:EEng or one of his imitators to show up and comment on your above (inadvertently?) humorous "blindingly fucking".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It apparently is actually possible for someone to be blindingly fucked, according to The Sun at least. I am very concerned, however, at the notion that I have imitators. That's sad. Mental health experts should be brought in to investigate this phenomenon. EEng 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Accept no pale imitations, folks. Also... never look directly into The Sun, if you can avoid it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Figured I should disclose my bias in this case. I had a very, very bad experience with a so-called "civil POV-pusher" some years back. It started in 2012 and didn't stop until 2016, when he got himself TBANned and left the project, but I wasn't completely free of his legacy until March of this year, because he managed to convince a large portion of the community, and then later nine members of ArbCom, that I should be TBANned for having let him get under my skin enough that I lost my cool and told him to fuck off, or something to that effect. Hzh is now asking for doing the same to JzG, who was one of the admins who took none of that user's shit or that of another similar "civil POV-pusher". Another editor recently similarly tried to go after another editor I considered a friend: he was, thankfully, unable to get sanctions for that editor (and actually got himself indeffed by refusing to drop the stick -- take the hint Hzh (talk · contribs)), but the harassment, combined with the realization that a significant portion of the project is all too willing to be duped, got to the point that said editor was driven off the project and requested a self-block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I hold that user in high regard, barring the occasional outburst at good editors (or me once, more surprising than offensive), and I believe they are usually correct in their assessments. If you repeatedly become aware of ones own bias, it is easier to tolerate it in others. It was nice to get some background on your position, which is also not wrong. cygnis insignis 12:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The comment about your endless demands for proof of the blindingly fucking obvious was in the context of your endless campaign against the word "illegal" when describing a site that takes credentials to which it has no right, accesses commercial servers to which it has no permission, downloads papers whose rights are owned by the publishers, stores them on its own servers and offers them free to download. However much you might argue that a handful of countries don't have copyright law and some of the papers are open access, Sci-Hub was built to pirate documents, its raison d'être vanishes without that activity, and there is no evidence that a single user has ever conducted their business with Sci-Hub without violating at least one law. Bear in mind here that reading a single paper downloaded with illicit credentials from any publisher in the UK, US or Germany involves, of necessity, the commission of an offence in at least one jurisdiction. That covers Elsevier, T&F, Springer, Nature and others - and that is just the three countries where I know from my professional experience that misuse of computer credentials is a criminal offence. You will notice that these publishers are, in fact, the ones that most aggressively paywall content - in other words, the ones whose content Sci-Hub explicitly exists to pirate. Nobody needs to pirate OMICS or Hindawi. This is really not difficult to understand. Read clean hands doctrine. Any user of Sci-Hub is, or should be, aware that what they are doing is a systematic and deliberate violation of the intellectual property rights of the publishers, not least because Sci-Hub would, by Elbakyan's own admission, not exist if this were not the case. Sci-Hub's piracy of academic papers is illegal, and that is indeed blindingly fucking obvious. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: JzG hasn't responded here, and probably won't. I think Hzh is in danger of getting TBanned from that article, if he persists in asserting he has only edited the article 3 times while omitting he has edited the talkpage 137 times in only one month: [108]. POV editing often, and in fact usually, occurs on talk pages, and JzG is not actually required to back up his perception of POV editing. My recommendation would be to abandon this ANI report (there's insufficient evidence of wrongdoing by JzG). This is really a content dispute; please handle it via the normal routes of discussion, consensus, providing citations, utilizing WP:DR, etc. If you don't like JzG's comments about your edits, ignore them – that's the best option; if you can make an airtight irrefutable case for your proposed edit, and then utilize WP:DR for it if necessary, then that's the way to go. Otherwise, it might be time for you to edit elsewhere and leave that article alone for a few months. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with pretty much all of the above. A BOOMERANG is the only serious reason to keep this thread open. I'm of two minds on whether giving Hzh WP:ROPE and closing with a final warning would be a better idea at this point, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually I will, now Virmin have restored my internet :-) Yes, my personal view is that HzH should be TBANned from that article, his stonewalling and cavilling has been deeply tedious, for example demanding that I stop referring to Sci-Hub's model as illegal on the Talk page due to his novel interpretation of intellectual property law. Jytdog has done some excellent work on that article, it now reflects the real-world fact that Sci-Hub is engaged in intellectual property piracy. I don't think anybody on the Talk page likes academic publishers owning rights to published papers and charging huge sums to read them. HzH goes further and appears, from his comments on Talk, to repudiate those rights. That is a WP:FRINGE view. Look at the "RfC on word usage", where he seeks to exclude classes of words based on their implications for the legality and validity of Sci-Hub, not based on what the sources say. And we can't really ignore the fact that when Sci-Hub's model has been tested in court, it has gone against them by default - we can't speculate on what the result would have been had they chosen to defend it, but TPB went down and they were not actively hosting stolen content themselves, whereas Sci-Hub does. So in my view HzH is at that article primarily to Right Great Wrongs. Wikipedia is not the venue for that. Join EFF instead, they do a better job of it. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It might have been useful if you could provide some link s to the alleged problematic content. There appears to be this [[109]], and this seems to be your only bone of contention. Maybe accusing you of POV pushing based upon this is a tad too far, but θnot unreasonable given this is all you appear to have done on that article. I can see this getting a boomerang, I suggest you withdraw it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You're quite late to the punch here. I warned of a boomerang eight hours earlier, and Hzh kept deciding to dig deeper and deeper until he apparently went to bed; now the question is whether we should decide to be merciful and close the thread with a final warning or go ahead and give him the TBAN he doesn't seem to be willing to stop asking for. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to the OP, and explaining how he might make his case a bit better, to avoid a TBAN. As far as I know there is no statute if limitations until this ANI is closed (especially as we do not all edit at 2am) .Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A list of problematic passages is given at Talk:Sci-Hub#Problematic wordings, if you can examine them and see if the concerns are valid or not then it would be helpful. I will withdraw the complaint as it appears to have turned into something else. Hzh (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hzh: Just to clarify: you woke up, logged on to Wikipedia, saw all this, and decided to continue digging? We can move ahead with the discussion of whether you should be blocked from editing or "only" TBANned, then? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've reverted your closure of this thread. You need to withdraw and apologize for what you wrote, then the community decides whether we can trust you. Not withdrawing or apologizing (as the above comment implies), and closing the thread with the ambiguous "withdrawn" (do you agree that your own behaviour was problematic and you will attempt to improve, or do you just want to wait a bit before continuing, as your last comment implies?). If we were all allowed auto-close discussions that weren't going our way, nothing would ever get done around here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hzh, you can't close your own thread, especially not once your behavior is being examined. You may state here in the thread that you withdraw the complaint, but you cannot close the thread -- only an uninvolved admin should do that at this point. At this point most everyone agrees that you should walk away from the SciHub article or be TBanned from it. Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't know that. I assume I can close it because I was asked to withdraw, my mistake. Hzh (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A word of advice to both editors:

My advice for User:Hzh:Hzh, you seem to be very invested into that topic(with all those talk page comments). Assess whether you are trying to build a neutral article or to push a certain viewpoint to be prominent in the article because you like it more. If it is the latter, cease to do it because that is not what we want here(Our project foundation). If it is the former please recount that not everyone has the same viewpoint as you and draws the same conclusion as you. You two are involved in a content dispute, and to solve this a WP:RFC to generate wider interest and to solve the issue can be helpful if the discussion stagnates, however, you have to word it neutrally. Which means you have to say what the dispute is, not only what your preferred solution is, at least not immediately - a RFC, like any other discussion, and indeed any Wikipedia and Mainspace page, has no owners, you are just the thread starter. You can, of course say "User A wanted this I wanted that what should be done?" as long as you correctly identify what user A actually wanted.

My advice for User:JzG: It is not helpful to tell someone "you are a POV-pusher" even if you think they are and, indeed, even if they are. This helps no one and - like here - only heats the dispute. It helps greatly if you are more specific and simply ask what they are trying to achieve and/or tell them about the project goal(neutral free articles) and tell them, if they indeed should want to push a certain viewpoint, that this is unwanted. Calling someone something like "POV-pusher" when they try to discuss something or complain about you is bad if you are right and horrible if you are wrong. It looks like name-calling, and drives legitimate editors or potential editors away. Lurking shadow (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Lurking shadow makes good points, this really looks like a content dispute, both sides need to refocus on content, and stop making accusations, sanctioning anyone won't help anything. I suggest this is closed with a reminder to everyone to focus on content and not make unnecessary accusations. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. It's mainstream v. WP:FRINGE, with the anti-copyright fringe becoming increasingly frustrated because they are no longer getting their way, after a lengthy period when the article portrayed the site as brave maverick freedom pioneers. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: "It's mainstream v. WP:FRINGE" You can certainly argue this (I won't take a side on the content dispute) but it's still a content dispute, and therefore shouldn't be on ANI. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Most behavioral issues have content components, that doesn't mean that the behavioral problem can't be handled at ANI. The behavioral issue here is an editor pushing their POV in violation of WP:FRINGE. That's something that admins can do something about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"Most behavioral issues have content components, that doesn't mean that the behavioral problem can't be handled at ANI." I know that, what I don't see as any behavioral problem worth sanctioning anyone over, if one side of a content dispute is advocating for FRINGE content that doesn't mean they have to get sanctioned (unless they are editing disruptively or trying not to be neutral, something I don't see here, at least not enough to justify any sanctions). Tornado chaser (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: what I don't see [i]s any behavioral problem worth sanctioning anyone over Have you read anything in this thread? unless they are editing disruptively What do you call arguing endlessly (137 edits!) on the talk page while carefully avoiding touching the article directly (so as not to get an EW block), responding to an apparently legitimate accusation of POV-pushing with a string of off-topic "please focus on content" comments, then jumping straight to ANI? This is the very definition of WP:CPUSH, and it's one of the most insidious, vile things a Wikipedia editor can do. At this point I'm still on the side of giving the editor a final warning, but I'm baffled that an experienced editor like yourself could look at this thread and say "Nope, don't see anything out-of-line here". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:"What do you call arguing endlessly (137 edits!) on the talk page while carefully avoiding touching the article directly (so as not to get an EW block)" Umm.. I call that following wikipedia's policies by using the talk page rather than reverting. I find the suggestion that a talk page dispute is a bad faith way to evade an EW block absurd, the whole point of the WP:EW policy (and WP:BRD guideline) is to establish that the talk page is where disagreements on content are discussed, engaging in a long content dispute not disruptive editing (if it was, shouldn't JzG be sanctioned?). Now, I didn't say I saw no issues (for example the accusations of POV pushing from both sides, but especially Hzh, and Hzh's insistence on non neutral wording for the RfC) just that we should get back to discussing content without sanctioning anyone. And yes I have read through this whole thread and pretty much all of the linked discussions at WT:SciHub.. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I call that following wikipedia's policies by using the talk page rather than reverting. I find the suggestion that a talk page dispute is a bad faith way to evade an EW block absurd So, you've never encountered a "civil POV-pusher" before. That's good to know, as I can now tell you, from my extensive experience (briefly outlined in my "bias disclosure" comment above), that they thrive on running circles over and over again on the talk page, are always extremely careful never to violate 3RR, and their goal is to annoy their opponents (in this case JzG) into cursing or otherwise doing something they can be reported for, then immediately running to ANI when they do. The "please focus on content" comments are a dead giveaway, since JzG was focused on content while also explaining how content wasn't the problem but Hzh was. There's already a pretty strong consensus that this is what Hzh was doing (this explains his refusal, until the fourth or fifth time he was told he was facing sanctions, to withdraw this report and go back to using the talk page to discuss improvements to the article): the question is simply how to address it. Labeling such issues "content disputes" is a terrible idea and JzG should not be forced to endure any more of this by a "Content dispute. Back to the talk page." close (as, again, I and others have been in the past). You've already admitted you aren't familiar with this type of problem, so either study up, or let those who already have decide what to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say that you appear to have transferred whatever experience you have of other people onto me. I can't say you have actually produced much evidence for you to do that. I chose to withdraw because it seems to me that some have decided based on whatever experience they had before rather than examine the evidence here now. Tornado chaser appears to have actually read the (quite extensive) discussions, and I'm happy to accept his criticism because he appears to have examine them, and offered a reasoned assessment. Hzh (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, while I proactively disclosed my own bias above, I can guarantee that very few, if any, of the other commenters in this thread who have said the same thing as me have had similar experiences to me. If my reaction to you is made more extreme by my prior experiences with other users, it's because your actions resemble those of those other users in the worst possible way, not because I go out looking for people to blame for what happened to me earlier. Believe me: it would make my life a lot easier if I could just say about anyone I don't like "User X is like banned User Y" and virtually everyone agreed with me and started pushing for User X to be blocked, banned or issued a formal warning, as you seem to be claiming has happened here. Heck, I wouldn't even say I "don't like" you, as I don't know you from Adam; all I have is what's in this thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Mainstream v fringe is not a content dispute, it's a policy enforcement issue. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

So your saying someone should be sanctioned merely for their position in a content dispute? Tornado chaser (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I do have some concerns about Hzh's insistence on the non neutral RfC, but until then I did not see clear POV pushing(and yes I read though nearly all of the relevant discussions linked at the start of this thread), I do think Hzh should stop accusing others of POV pushing, and JzG should focus more on content and less on conduct too. Hzh's insistence on the non neutral RfC could be considered POV pushing, but a warning would suffice at this point. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I am saying that HzH has a fringe view which he is trying to WP:BLUDGEON all others into accepting. As a non-neutral party with a fringe view, if he decides that he has assessed consensus for a change then he should lay out what change he proposes to make so that others who do not have the fringe view can assess whether he is correctly assessing consensus or not - as noted above, a more likely case is that nobody can be bothered with his endless cavilling any more, in which case silence is not assent. Read the talk page. There are a small number of editors whose sincerely held objections to academic copyright, and whose righteous indignation over Aaron Swartz, has led them to a position where they write as if copyright law is a fringe position and Sci-Hub a legitimate enterprise - something the sources show absolutely categorically not to be true. Even fans of Sci-Hub, in reliable sources, point out that its model is unlawful. Lots of us would prefer a world in which academic paywalls did not exist, or at least were substantially lower, but that is not the world we live in, and the weight of law is firmly against us. That last crucial fact is the one that HzH does not accept. And that's a problem, not least because it has led to WP:POINTy addition of tons of linkvios across the project. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

When has insisting on WP:V and WP:NPOV been fringe? If you read the discussion there are people who agree with me, for example Elephanthunter cautioned on using voice of Wikipedia [110]. Hzh (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Every single rebuffed POV-pusher on every single article on quackery, bullshit cosmology, creationism and every other subject under the sun has said precisely the same thing. Elbakyan repudiates copyright law in this area, and that is a fringe position. I know you don't like it, and neither do I as it happens, but the fact is that Sci-Hub is engage din systematic computer fraud and illegal copyright infringement, and trying to obscure that is a huge problem for NPOV. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is about how to describe Sci-Hub's activity, and it is not fringe to insist on WP:V and WP:NPOV when doing it, it is nothing like fringe ideas such as flat-earth or Holocaust denial. Note that Jytdog's argument is different from yours - he argued for using it as a plain English term and don't mind using other words (I am not stuck on the word "fraud" for Sci-Hub's breaking of this norm[111]), whereas you appear to be arguing that terms like "fraud" can be used without qualification because it is considered to be so in most jurisdictions. Perhaps I missed it, I don't see other people agreeing with you on that. Editors like GreenMeansGo indicated that such words need Sci-Hub to have been convicted of these charges before they can be used - [112]. Hzh (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Unrelated content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mysterious Malaysian IP suddenly starts harassing me after I comment here [113] @Hzh: You seem to have something of a Malaysian connection (one of your top-ten most-edited articles is Kuala Lumpur, the city to which this IP geolocates, and any random page of 500 of your mainspace edits seems to include an average of 50 that include "Malay-") and a number of edits related to airlines/airports[114][115][116][117] (the IPs other edits were both related to this topic). Given this, I can only assume that IP was you, responding to my comments above. I could ask where you got that information, but I've got enough long-banned wikihounds who still have email access enabled for this not to really be an issue. Anyway, if this was Hzh, I would naturally suggest he be indeffed, as a TBAN would be much too light. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC) I live in England. And if anyone wants to perform a checkuser on me, they are welcome to do so. Hzh (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC) As for the airlines edits, no I don't usually edit on airlines, those were reverts on unexplained deletion of content (someone decided to remove content relating to the incidents involving Malaysian Airline, while the SouthWest Airlines edit is part of my page curation activity, therefore entirely coincidental). British Airways i360 also has got nothing to with it (it's a tourist attraction), when I first edited on the article it was simply called i360. I can only remember a few edits on airports (e.g. Siem Reap Airport and Langkawi International Airport because I happened to pass through these airports in 2015), if there are more I have completely forgotten about them. Hzh (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Ah, okay. That actually makes some sense. I can actually think of a couple of ways it could still be you, but I'd rather not disclose them, and I've come up with a couple more ideas about who it could be. Sorry for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Periodic table

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

---

Assuming it's already been cleaned up since I'm no longer seeing them at the moment, but Periodic table just had a group of images vomited across the bottom of the page - see WT:BIL#Stripper images. That page shares templates with a number of others, including Nihonium, which is the featured article; also appears clean at the moment. Home Lander (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Related, I just blocked 3 accounts. A regular customer. Some followup of templates and/or blacklist remains to be done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Zzuuzz to the rescue as usual, thanks. Home Lander (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

SIVASANKAR G A

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

---

• SIVASANKAR G A (talk · contribs)
• 157.51.157.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Draft:SIVASANKAR G A

The blocked user keep on create his CV in wikipedia, now he recreate exactly the same CV in draft space, and remove the speedy tag, so i post it here instead of revert war on the speedy tag. And may i request to salt the draft title to in lieu with User:SIVASANKAR G A ? Matthew hk (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleted and semi-protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

update. It seem the same person by re-inserting himself in Aeronautical Society of India as 157.51.178.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Special:Diff/869254652). Matthew hk (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I semi-protected Aeronautical Society of India for a few days, which will hopefully resolve it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

I'm being stalked (maybe trolled) -- anyone know if there's anything that can be done?

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

---

[118]

I'm sure I could probably figure out who the above IP probably is based on the choice of editors pinged -- whoever it is seems to be unfamiliar with my old, quite famous, disputes with JoshuSasori (talk · contribs), CurtisNaito (talk · contribs) and Catflap08 (talk · contribs), but knew to ping Brough87 (talk · contribs) and C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs), both of whom I basically only interacted with in a single ANI thread each during May of this year, and the former of whom was a very obscure presence who disappeared after that single ANI thread. But since CU won't explicitly connect an IP to a named account and chances are very high that whoever it is is already effectively site-banned (and if it's one of the ones who is still active I'd just be drawing more ire for "bogus sockpuppetry accusations" or some such).

Any idea what should be done here?

(And yes, I know I could "just ignore it", but that's not very helpful. I find this kind of harassment very troubling, and if anyone knows whether anything can be done about it I'd like advice.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for harassment, I'm not sure how to figure out who that could possibly be based on that one edit alone, but it's obviously someone who's established enough, likely blocked or banned, and who has a very obvious grudge against you. In my experience, there's no shortage of people out there who will, terrifyingly, hold very real grudges against people over very minor incidents, for very long periods of time. Let us know if you see anything else crop up, there's only ever one way to deal with this kind of harassment.  Swarm  talk  00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• don’t let that trash get you down- people like that ip seem to think that this whole sites a drama and they’re the main character. How cringey!💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 00:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: The above is one of the baddest badnacs I've seen in a while. I said in a thread further up this page that the result you were pushing for ("Content dispute, not for ANI") was a bad idea, then when I open another thread about what's almost certainly not a random troll (how would a random troll know so much about my history?) asking for advice and specifically saying I don't want to be dismissed with "It's just a random troll", and as soon as the IP that made the offending edit is issued a 3-day block you close the thread with "Troll blocked"? Not cool, man. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I misinterpreted the fact that you didn't want to "just ignore it" as saying you wanted the IP blocked rather than being told the harassment was no big deal, I see now that you meant you want to get to the bottom of who it is, which I totally understand. Also, if I am thinking of closing an ANI due to the vandal/troll being blocked, I normally check the timestamps to make sure it is not so recent that something might still be happening, which I forgot to do this time, I would not have closed this had I seen the timestamps. So yes this was a mistaken close, in the future, I know of no rule that prohibits you from reverting a nac without waiting for the closer to respond. You also mention the recent thread with JzG and Hzh, but I don't see what that has to do with this close. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, we're cool then. As for mentioning the Hzh thread: in that case I was convinced that closing it with "content dispute, not for ANI" would be a bad idea because it would force JzG to endure more of Hzh, similarly to how saying "IP blocked, nothing more to see here" would (potentially) force me to endure more of this. If you look at the first draft of my above comment to you, I have a pretty good idea of what the IP's username is (and even if I'm wrong, said user still really needs an indef block for their continued hounding of me despite claiming to be "retired"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

137.25.35.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

---

The person using this static IP is clearly a troll. His talk page and last edit clearly indicate this. Please block for as long as reasonable. John from Idegon (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I know I could have put this to AIV, but I was hoping for a longer term solution. This is especially enlightening. John from Idegon (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. I know that probably seems a bit underwhelming, but we can block longer if it starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Indef needed for aggressive refspammer

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

---

• MegGutman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MariusOrion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ada1944 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MegGutman is edit warring to spam refs by someone named Gagniuc into a range of articles around health and math. MariusOrion was doing the same back in 2016 and Ada1944 back in 2013. Primary sources, REFSPAM, PROMO/UNDUE, etc. Am posting here instead of EWN because the problem spans so many articles and the behavior is so clear. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User spamming creation of Tahith Chong

The following discussion is closed. 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 article Tahith Chong has been created three times since the end of August and deleted twice. Each time it was created in that period, it was created by User:DJdjPollard15; however, despite the article failing an AfD at the start of August, this user has done nothing to add anything to the article by way of convincing anyone of the subject's notability. I have messaged this user before about frivolously creating articles, but they seem incapable of engaging with anyone in discussion. In more than two years of editing on Wikipedia, they have contributed to a Talk, User talk or Wikipedia talk page just once, and that was today to contest the deletion of that article - furthermore, they couldn't even get that right and have failed to provide a reason why the article shouldn't be deleted. I propose that this user be blocked for at least a couple of weeks, and potentially more if they fail to engage anyone in conversation after that point. They're clearly not here to collaborate on building an encyclopaedia, so what are we supposed to do other than block them? – PeeJay 11:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleted article, image and warned DJdjPollard15. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Assistance needed with a non-English speaking user

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

---

I apologize for coming to this board for the second time in two days, but I got a problem with user Tyg728 who does not speak English, only Chinese, continues edit-warring and does not understand what I am trying to explain them. The story is that the main activity of this user in the English Wikipedia for many years is to add photographs of Beijing metro to the articles on Beijing metro stations. The problem is that most of the existing photos there are mine (in 2010 and 2012, when nobody cared about these stations, I spent several days of my time when I was visiting Beijing and photographed all the stations). Admittedly, sometimes their photographs are better than mine, but sometimes I do not see how they are better. They replace my photos with theirs, without asking me anything, and edit-war when I ask them to discuss. Sometimes their edits are truly ridiculous like here when they added five photos into an article of two lines, but they still removed the photos which were there before them. When I reverted, they continued reverting me, once with a summary in Chinese, and once with a nonsensical summary. The example is from today, but they reverted me multiple times before, just a couple of cases: [119], [120]. Recently, they have nominated my photo for deletion on Commons, apparently in retaliation: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tiananmen east2st.jpg (motivation in Chinese). I mean, there is probably a civilized way of resolving this dispute, and the user probably genuinely believes that their photos are so much superior to everything else, that photos of other users must be removed from the articles, and their photos added in any amount, but this is not how our project operates. May by a Chinese-speaking user can talk to them and explain them the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, but if they still fail to understand it I do not see how they can participate in the English Wikipedia. Thanks you for assistance.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I translated your message into Chinese. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 13:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, we will see whether they get it.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

More translation (if necessary): This edit summary means "Which photo [I've added] is destroying yours?"; Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tiananmen east2st.jpg: "图片主题模糊，没有对焦" means "the subject of the photo is blurry, without focusing", "荒謬" (in the comment section) means "ridiculous" ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems to have been resolved, thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:OUTING by Padmakalki

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

---

Some recent problems created by Padmakalki

• Padmakalki has attempted to out me here. That's a serious disregard of our privacy policies.
• Padmakalki seems to be taking ownership of account Clare Cunningham here (17:54, 17 November 2018).
• Padmakalki apparently doesn't like when people post to his talk page, yet has no problem posting to other people's talk pages.
  • Padmakalki likes to wipe talk page comments from his page. Note the copious deletions here.
• The day after Padmakalki posted to my talk page, Manavatha, who also has a penchant for deleting talk page comments, and incoherent comments, posted some hard-to-follow stuff on my talk page.
• Here I asked Padmakalki how many accounts he had open, and why he hadn't declared any of them on his various user pages. In response, he deleted my query without answering it.
• Based on the above, it would seem that Padmakalki is abusing multiple accounts (probably Padmakalki and Manavatha, and probably not the others) so that users can't track this user's contributions. That violates WP:SCRUTINY.
• Here (17:49, 17 November 2018) Padmakalki has pretended to be MiaSays, while also trying to out that user.
  • When Padmakalki's attempt to out and feign ownership of MiaSays was reverted by C.Fred, Padmakalki restored the revert (17:54, 17 November 2018), and then claimed ownership of the MiaSays account, writing "Im editing my page my next alternate account." That's questionable, but it's starting to look like the Padmakalki shell is not here to edit constructively.

Since they've taken to OUTING and claiming ownership of accounts that are probably not theirs, I think a CheckUser might be prudent, because it's hard to tell if they are just faking good-hand/bad-hand editing or what. Manavatha, however, seems like a good guess for a sock account, while there's no clear indication for Clare Cunningham or MiaSays. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Support block for the outing alone, which I have removed. Needs a revdel though. --Tarage (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Support as one of my comments have been deleted. He didn't reply anyone and deleted warnings. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 08:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

And he's gone. Close welcome. --Tarage (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• UPDATE: Padmakalki has been indef blocked by Alex Shih. I'm not closing this thread yet in case CU or revdels need to be performed. Anyone have any thoughts? Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Confirmed to Padmakalki:
  • Manavatha (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Yikkimikki (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Krishnapaduka (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Complantea (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Boost56 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Kurushetra (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

It's possible there are more, but I think I was pretty thorough. I preemptively revoked talk page access on all of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:OxfordLaw behavior in the Saudi article

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

---

OxfordLaw (talk · contribs)

I have engaged in a long and enervated dispute with OxfordLaw over the manual of style ought to be followed in Saudi Arabia's pre-Islamic history section. When I made my contribution, merely re-writing and adding additional informations, from the former version I was reverted by the said user who further added; that a consensus was reached and multiple users contributed to the section. While a consensus can be rightly challenged, his remark is not remotely true, nor it have meager amount of credibility. The said version was indiscriminately dumped by a certain guy called Saud2828 in November 25, 2016.[121]. Who copied multiple articles and moved it to the history section of Saudi Arabia, without adjusting or modifing his version to make it relatively consistent and appealing to the average reader. Also he didn't make proper attribution. Later, the version was slightly altered by OxfordLaw. The version was not discussed, neither challenged beforehand.

When I made it clear to him he attacked me and accused me of lying[122], which he was warned for by Doug Weller.[123]. After futile discussion and back and forth, I decided to ping some users to cite their opinion on the issue.which they kindly provided.. [124], [125], only two users replied, both favored the latter version[126]. I thought the issue was over, I edited the page according to the consensus, but I was reverted again by OxfordLaw, since, apparently that doesn't qualify as a consensus. I tried 3O method of solving disputes, and asked whether the Saudi Arabian pre-Islamic section should be separated into multiple sections or incorporated into one encompassing section, the 3O reply over this specific matter was: "There probably shouldn't be separate sections for Lihyan, Nabataean, Dilmun, Thamud and Kindah, etc.".Thinking the problem was over, I restored the reverted version. Again he reverted me despite all odds. So I tried DRN to put an end to the dispute, and I said to him that I have no problem if he edit or include additional informations to the version, as long as it is consistent and it blend in the general chronological narrative of the version. But he failed to participate in the DRN, which resulted in it being closed[127]. Clearly WP:NOTHERE.

Despite all that, I was advised by Doug to open a RfC, which I did as a final and last resort. The result was that more participants in the opened RfC supported the reverted version. When, again, I thought the issue was over and decided to edit the page to accommodate the result, I was reverted by OxfordLaw.[128]. He claimed that the said version was there for much longer and gained much support, while I can't argue the former, the latter is absolutely not remotely true, as explained above.

The issue needs immediate administration attention. Nabataeus (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I dont know if this TLDR report was really needed because anyone who has review the article history of Saudi Arabia would know that OxfordLaw has been most disruptive. Support a topic ban on anything related to Saudi Arabia. Orientls (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me, I am a bit frustrated over his behavior patterns in the Saudi article. Worst is his determination to go against consensus. Nabataeus (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Understandable. I was just adding that his disruption is very obvious. Thank you for reporting. Orientls (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment OxfordLaw has been identified as being a sock of Suitcivil133 by an checkuser admin and blocked indef. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

47.152.184.114

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

---

47.152.184.114 is blocked for vandalism by Widr. Unfortunally, he/she abuses his abillity to edit his talkpage. Please revoke his access for his talkpage while he is blocked. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Nemo bis

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

---

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

Nemo bis is a vocal proponent of Sci-Hub, the academic paper piracy site, see Sci-Hub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sci-Hub has a long-running legal wrangle with Elsevier, caused by Sci-Hub's use of university credentials to which it has no legal right, to access, store, and serve, Elsevier's copyright material in open defiance of copyright. Sci-Hub's operator, and many fans, repudiate the right of publishers to hold exclusive rights to academic papers. While this position is undoubtedly morally defensible (and I agree with it), it is the opposite of the current laws across most of the world.

Nemo bis has now stared adding "free to read" links to large numbers of articles, linking to zenodo.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com . This site allows anyone to upload papers without checking copyright status. Some of the papers are copyright by Elsevier, Nature and other well known litigious publishers. Another, by OUP, Nemo bis asserts on his talk page to be public domain based on his own reading of (current) US government copyright policy.

I think this violates WP:POINT and WP:RGW. I have blacklisted the site per WP:C while we work out what the copyright status really is for these works. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this taking over my watchlist. It's also a problem of making 2000 revisions faster than a human could. Natureium (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The links were checked and directed manually one by one. Also, I don't agree with the statement above that I'm a "vocal proponent of Sci-Hub". --Nemo 18:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Note this came up just over a year ago[129]. This appears to be a continuation/amplification of the problem identified then. Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• yep I asked that Zenodo be removed from OABOT's suggestion lists at WT:OABOT#Zenodo which they argued against. I have reverted many of their zenodo (and other links) over the past few days Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've also taken the initiative and ensured that Citation bot stops adding links to Zenodo, with User talk:Citation bot/Archive_12#Emergency blacklist and https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1029 (t) Josve05a (c) 22:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Josve05a: thank you, and apologies for the inevitable inconvenience this is likely to cause you. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand why questionable open access links are being added [130] when the existing DOI will probably lead to this [131] which seems to already be open access. Is there something I'm missing? I'm not accessing from an institution or other subscriber or via any such proxy, just an ordinary NZ ISP connection. I even tried private mode to make sure there wasn't some stray cookie, or a referrer causing it. If the PDF is desired it's here [132]. If it's feared the DOI's target will change or will be different, wouldn't it be better to link to the Nature site directly in the URL field? P.S. Since Nemo checked each addition, I'm assuming they checked what the DOI did before adding. Nil Einne (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I got the above by randomly clicking one of Nemo's recent contribs since there's been no examples of the what people were talking about in the earlier comments (well not counting the previous ANI). To see if this was a fluke, I looked at the other 5 most recent contribs. Without commenting on the copyright issues, the first 3 and last one at least seem to serve a purpose in that none of the links (either the DOI or link outs in PubMed) seems to lead to open access versions [133] [134] [135] [136]. But the fourth (fifth if you include the earlier case) [137] is another one where the existing DOI seems to lead to a full text link [138]. The PDF is also available [139]. So this is 2 out of 6. Again I'm using an ordinary NZ home ISP connection and tried in private mode. Have journals started to use region based pay walls and provide open access to only certain areas or is there something else I'm missing about the advantage of Zenodo over the journal site? Otherwise, considering the questions over whether they have sufficient systems in place to stop copyvios, I really don't see a benefit to adding these Zenodo hosted open access links when the journal hosted copy is already open access. If it's feared that the open access links may disappear wouldn't using archive.org or webcitation (if robots.txt allow) be a better solution? Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I see Wikipedia:OABOT#I am a publisher. How do I make sure OAbot recognizes my full texts? and Wikipedia:OABOT#What kinds of links won't the bot add? that there is already recognition that OABot should try and recognise existing full text publication links and not add other open access links if there's already one. While it's possible the publishers in these cases haven't properly complied with normal guidelines for making full text, which is unfortunate, since Nemo manually checked all their additions this isn't a problem since if the full text worked for them they would I presume have recognised it. (I mean it's pretty hard for a human not to notice it's full text especially since you don't have to click on anything in these cases.) So I really don't understand what happened here. I tried with a proxy, unfortunately my proxy doesn't offer Italy but both Ireland and Spain also gave the working full text version from the DOI. Has Nemo somehow been blocked from the full text or is Italy or wherever Nemo is accessing from not allowed the full text? Nil Einne (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That "manual check" does not appear to satisfy any of our normal criteria for checking rights. Try uploading an image with a rationale like that, see how far you get. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that when we link to academic papers in journals, WP:ELNEVER demands that we should only link to sites that trace the provenance of each paper and for which that provenance can be unambiguously traced back to an author (e.g. arXiv, many institutional repositories, or direct links to the author's own web site) or to official published versions of the paper (on the publisher site or sites with the explicit permission of the publisher such as jstor). Zenodo doesn't appear to maintain this provenance data, so we should not allow links to it. Blacklisting links to it may be a somewhat drastic step, but given the magnitude of the problem (huge number of links, many of which appear to be either copyright violations or self-published materials) it may be necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• @JzG: Where does WP:C justify blacklisting a site "while we work out what the copyright status really is"? SmartSE (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The alternative was to block Nemo bis, but if these are copyright violating external links (as every one I have checked has been) then blacklisting serves a well established protective purpose preventing good faith users from accidentally invoking potential liability. We've done the same before. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

For example, sci-hub is globally blacklisted. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• If anybody doubts that Nemo bis a) doesn't understand WP:COPYLINK and b) has no interest whatsoever in understanding this policy, please see the series of discussions at their talk page which includes things like the following:
  • concerning this edit, which added a link to the final published version of this paper published in Science Signalling which per SHERPA/ROMEO does not allow the final published version to be archived.,... (Not ambiguous, not hard to figure out).... they wrote:
    • diff What reasons do you have to think that <zenodo link redacted> is a copyright violation? The author can have a contract addendum with the publisher, a specific license or other statutory rights.
    • diff Could you clarify what parts of the policies you believe to state that the non-copyvio status of the link targets needs to be verifiable? The very section you linked says something very different.
  • more generally:
    • diff I'm not hosting nor uploading or otherwise providing that copy. The responsible way to proceed, when one has a doubt, is to contact the author so that they can check their contracts and if necessary revise their archived copies. I happen to have already done so for the author of <zenodo link redacted>, but you can easily be helpful in reducing copyright violations even if you are less familiar than me with publisher policies: just point authors to the respective records on https://dissem.in/ . (totally outrageous)
    • diff I assume you just wanted to inform me of the existence of Template:Uw-copyright-link, because the text doesn't apply to any edit of mine. I'm definitely not «Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright».
    • diff I'm sympathetic to your concerns, but I'm afraid this is an inaccurate description of the matter (argh)
    • diff There is no reason whatsoever to blindly assume that CERN or the author of the article would be violating copyright. Civil systems exist for rightsholders to have their rights respected, and I don't think your second-guessing here is one of them. Are you sure you're not getting emotional due to personal connections to Blackwell? You may want to sleep over it
  • over at WT:OABOT they wrote this complete nonnsense:
    • diff How do you know the author did not gain authorisation for that upload?. In response to this very good answer from User:David Eppstein, they wrote
    • diff: By this reasoning, we should not use any institutional repository. Your reading of the policy is therefore clearly wrong.

It is very, very clear that to Nemo Bis, if a paper is in a repository we should assume it is there in compliance with the publisher's license agreement. This is exactly the wrong answer per WP:COPYLINK and also ignores question #4 that OABOT asks when it presents a link, namely: Is the new link likely copyright-compliant? nemo bis' answer is "I will assume 'yes'" -- the question appropriately asks for the user him or herself to make the determination before the editor takes responsibility for adding the link to WP. Since Nemo bis will not take responsibility and keeps adding links that violate WP:COPYLINK, we should TBAN them from adding links. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

TBAN or indef

In light of Nemo bis' disdain for WP:COPYLINK which is policy this person should be a) TBANed from adding any URLs to citations or b) indefinitely blocked. It is one thing to advocate for OA and another to push policy violations into WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Since this was first raised here last year the problem edits have continued, culminating in this latest batch of thousands of URL insertions, a significant number of which appear problematic. The user seems completely oblivious to the harm of these (and indeed seems to think themselves judge and jury[140] in matters of copyright), but in other areas their editing looks productive. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN as chronically willingunwilling to accept that current copyright law is what it is. The discussion Alexbrn linked is really troubling. In it, Nemo_bis appears to assert that a publisher is not allowed to declare restrictive copyright/licensing on their publications. DMacks (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, fixed a fairly critical wrong word in my comment. DMacks (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN whether he is intentionally violating WP:COPYLINK or inserting these links due to carelessness, it is problematic on a large scale and he refuses to acknowledge this. Natureium (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment any URLs to citations seems a bit over the top. As zenodo.org is already blacklisted they can't continue to add links to that, so I can't see what purpose a TBAN would serve, unless I am mistaken and there are numerous other sites they have been linking to? SmartSE (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes they seem to add whatever link OABOT suggests; they take no responsibility for making reasonably sure that the linked paper is OK to link-to. See diffs above on their approach. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thanks for the links. I agree they do show a worrying disregard for copyright and for listening to the concerns of other editors so also support TBAN although I still think that they should be able to add normal citations to articles, otherwise this is just de-facto blocking them from adding any sourced content. SmartSE (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I thought about a narrow TBAN on using OABOT but there is nothing then to stop them from just manually doing it. There are parameters like pmid and pmc that they can use instead.... Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Nemo bis does not appear to respect Wikipedia's requirements for respecting publisher copyright (whatever we may think of the moral value of publishers acting in this way) and protecting the encyclopedia from legal liability takes priority over assisting readers in searching for pirated copies of references. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - Such a sanction appears to be necessitated by the editor's actions. Next step should be an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - linking to copyright violations is something that can have a serious negative impact on the project. Support TBAN and then escalation to indef if the disregard for copyright principles continues. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I know I am coming late to this party, but I am surprised that our long term colleague Nemo bis is challenged considering their years of good work for GLAM content. I have briefly looked at a couple of the example sources and the discussion. In the context of academic papers, which I believe is the primary locus of dispute, it is standard publishing practice to allow pre-publication versions of papers to be released by the author however they wish (like on Academia or Facebook!), without that being a breach of contract. In addition there are publishing contracts that effectively reverse the norm, such as for Wellcome funded projects where attempting to restrict access can lead to financial penalties. There is also a conflation of publishing contracts and copyright, these are legally separate issues and especially in the case of academic works may be contradictory. Where this happens I believe we always fall on the side of doing our best to comply with copyright rather than attempting to enforce contract law. There may be evidence I am missing where Nemo bis is misinterpreting the nature of the sources or the literal meaning of policy. If that may be down to a language gap issue, I would hope that sufficient good faith applies that any TBAN is limited and applied with a solid presumption of good faith on appeal, if Nemo bis commits to asking for better advice for specific sources if they are disputable. Not for one minute do I believe that Nemo bis is guilty of deliberately promoting copyright piracy. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Nemo bis was engaging in WP:POINTy behaviour, many of the links added were not to pre-publication versions, and the rate of addition is completely inconsistent with any checking of copyright status of the links. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, however my first language is English and I have engaged with many copyright discussions and policy development on Commons over the years, as well as on this project, and I do not find WP:Copyrights easy to interpret, and would hesitate to advise on it. It is not unlawful for a website to host a copy of a copyrighted publication if the copyright statement remains intact, and there is no obvious common understanding of which website is designed to act or be used in direct contravention of copyright law (which will vary by host country anyway). If the locus is academic publications, then these boundaries become harder, for example even on a website that can be shown to be actively used for copyright piracy, a link to a copy of an academic paper is still unlikely to be a copyright violation, even if you can argue that a publisher has hosted it elsewhere with usage restrictions for their copy. However I suspect that the policy is not actually about literal copyright, i.e. that which could be proven in a court of law, but rather what is perceived as an issue or a hypothetical risk.

On Commons our policies benefit by the use of casebooks. Looking at key past cases can often move us on beyond single word definitions and may assist users that are struggling with how to realistically interpret copyright related policies in particular.

Sorry for the tangent, if Nemo bis has a pattern of being pointy, then civility is the issue and that focus can be examined as evidence, and sanctions or restrictions can be framed by that evidence without digging into copyright definitions. --Fæ (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about commons policy. but on en.wikipedia, it's not acceptable to link to material on another site when the other site most likely is hosting the material in violation of the copyright holder's rights i.e. without the permission of the copyright holder. (Permission would obviously include cases where permission has been granted non specifically e.g. freeish licences.) The only general exceptions for this are archive sites which archive material which was at one stage live on the web, as well as leaks of confidential material in the public interest. If it's a reputable site, e.g. a news sites we normally trust that they have sufficient systems in place to decide if they can host the material e.g. based on fair use or fair dealing exceptions, but for random sites e.g. someone's personal website this doesn't apply. The most common time this comes up is with Youtube links but it can come up with anything e.g. many Torrent links. Note with Youtube, AFAIK we apply it even to music links where the material is correctly identified by Youtube's content ID system. While in some cases concerns over the copyright of the graphical material may arise (whether it's the original music video or made up of random images), AFAIK we do the same even if it's a completely black video. For academic publications, while I've only seen 2 or 3 examples of such discussions, it similar. AFAIK, if it's a generally trustworthy site e.g. a universities official repository, we generally assume that they know what they are doing unless we have evidence otherwise. For the author's personal repository we generally cannot make this assumption since most authors of scientific papers are far from experts on copyright. BTW whether or not it's against the law is mostly not something we concern ourselves with. At least in the US, whether or not it's illegal, the person hosting the material could probably be sued to take it down and maybe even sued for damages, and there's even some minor risk the person linking to the material could likewise be sued. But the minor risk of being sued is IMO not the main reason we do it anyway. And definitely not any criminal liability (i.e. being against the law). Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

As for Nemo bis, if they are able to correctly interpret whether the link is hosting the material in an acceptable fashion for out purposes there would be no problem. The problem is they don't seem to be able to do so. This in itself would not be a problem. Copyright confuses a lot of people. They could likely resolve that by following a few simple rules e.g. only linking to reputable sources such as news sites, publisher sites etc. However despite being warned about it before, they've failed to moderate their behaviour and are still linking to material that seems not be okay. We would apply the same anywhere. If someone kept linking to dodgy Youtube versions of news stories, music videos or some such, they would need to stop or we'd force them to stop in some manner. Technically maybe a more narrow ban could be used here, but Nemo bis has IMO exhausted the communities patience so much, especially with the rate they've added these, and also since it doesn't seem to simply be that they don't understand copyright policy but that they don't care, that people are responding in this way and reluctant to give them a chance to wikilawyer e.g. to a ban allowing official sites or a ban on repositories. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• This appears closeable, perhaps? Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN I'm not sure if it's simply incompetence or pointyness, but I don't think it matters. Since Nemo bis, despite manually checking, didn't mark some free DOIs as free, regardless of whether they also added URLs, I don't think we can trust anything they did. One thing which hasn't really been raised is that it's not simply copyright issues. If you can't entirely trust that the website has systems in place to ensure that there are no copyright violations, then can we be sure they have systems in place to ensure material isn't modified? The answer is likely no, therefore anyone using them needs to also check that this didn't happen. If it's a copy of the published version, this is probably trivial. if it's a pre-publication or some other version different from the published, you probably need to be sure who uploaded the pre-publication version or created it (if it's digitally signed). Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I entirely agree. There are also pre-publication drafts, which can't support text as references because we don't know if the published version was edited prior to publication. I can see that this site is a useful resource for academics, who will, in the end, check against the final published article (or at least their reviewers should), but there are several problems which make it a challenging and probably inappropriate source for Wikipedia to use. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

The user Arboleh

The following discussion is closed. 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 @Arboleh: is harassing, attacking, threatening me and other users in his edit summaries as well as accusing me and other users of vandalism and racism when we are clearly not, please have a look on his edits summaries here [141], [142] [143] [144] [145]. He is just making fake propaganda in order to divert attention from his edits and confuse people.

Moreover, I and other users have reported this user Arboleh before for sock puppetry and now he is trying to attack me and do the same thing as the suspected sock Itaren which is another unmistakable behavioral evidence that he is sock of Midddayexpress, This Arboleh also had disruptively edited some Wikipedia pages, attacked me, editwarred me, reported me asking for administrator intervention and the he asked for help the same user whom the user Itaren asked for help shortly after Itaren asked him!!! which is an additional unmistakable evidence that both accounts are for the same person who is indeed Middayexpress. The Somali user Middayexpress ( has the Canadian Nationality ) is a very persistent sock puppeteer who has been using many fake accounts in order to promote his racist Afrocentric agenda and vandalize Wikipedia, this user is trying to whitewash Horn Africans and link them to Middle Easterners and North Africans while distancing Horn Africans from their other fellow East Africans brothers which is very racist. At the same time, He is trying to black-wash Middle Easterners and North Africans and linking them to horn Africans:), this guy got really no life, he has been using hundreds of sock puppet accounts in order to vandalize Wikipedia and promote his Afrocentric agenda, for example, he is trying to deattach modern Egyptians from their ancient Egyptians origins and link the Egyptian civilization to Sub Saharan Africans who have nothing at all to do with Egypt or Egyptians which is extremely racist and ridiculous!!!. I have already filed a sock puppeting report against him but It was reverted because some other user before filed a sock puppeting report against the same user and the result was inconclusive because he is using proxy. You can check his IP history and you will find that he uses only proxies and that he never logged in through a legit IP address which means that he is trying to hide something, also this account was created shortly after the block of confirmed sock puppets Middayexpress, Soupforone, Geneticanthro, ....etc and he has been making the same edits on the same pages with almost identical edit summaries. You can also check the behaviors of these accounts and Middayexpress/Soupforone, you will find that the behavioral evidence is very clear and unmistakable. Thank youRyanoo (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)  Investigating.... That first edit summary isn't really at anyone in particular, and I wouldn't classify it as a personal attack. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A few things for you, @Ryanoo:

1. It looks like you're staring at a boomerang here. You have failed to engage on a talk page with Arboleh, and may break 3RR in the near future.
2. You have failed to notify Arboleh about this discussion. This is evident as a notice both on this page and in the edit window. You can copy and paste this onto Arboleh's page: {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=The user Arboleh}}
3. Some of the edit summaries were on pages you've never even edited before. That could be possible WikiHounding.
4. I do agree however, that Arboleh could assume better faith.

This judgement can't replace admin action. You may want to wait for admin input here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300 I didn't fail to engage on the talk page, in fact he is the one who obviously did, I have asked in my edit summary to engage in the talk page and I mentioned him on the talk page [146] in order to discuss the edits. However, he didn't engage in the talk page and reported me for vandalism and continued to attack me personally on other users pages reply!!! Ryanoo (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That in no way excuses your failure to engage Arboleh on their talk page. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300 Regarding the first edit summary I will consider it as both personal and general attacking, he said he is cleaning biased and racist claims while they are clearly not and by this, he means that the users who did those edits are biased and racist while they are clearly not as their edits are clearly of good faith. Regarding the rest of the edit summaries, he clearly harassed, attacked, threatened me and other users as well as well as accused me and other users of vandalism and racism when we are clearly not.Ryanoo (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. WP:NPA does not cover attacks on content, only contributors. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300 I didn't know that I have to notify him and I didn't know also how that can be done. It is done now!Ryanoo (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have already reported this user Ryanoo for Vandalisme to Admin @Doug Weller and Roxy and to the proper Vandalism channel. This user is also extremely racist and harbors white nationalist or white supremacist views. I will wait for the vandalism report, until then I have no need to engage this person, all his intentions and views can be seen in the North Africa page where he spews his racist rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arboleh (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

*Support topic ban of Ryanoo from Africa topics This editor has a short but storied history about arguing pointless about Africa and even the "definition of Africa", and reporting anyone who disagrees as a vandal. This includes even hilariously suggesting that an editor tried to hack their account [147]. I am uninterested in watching this continue, and suggest a topic ban from Africa related topics as a last straw before blocking indef. --Tarage (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Striking my vote for my vote below. Both editors need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage I don't what you are talking about?!!!, my edits are focused on my country Egypt and region ( Middle East and North Africa ) and defending our history from the Afrocentrists who are trying to steal and appropriate it. I have nothing to with Sub-Saharan Africans, apart defending my Egyptian heritage from being stolen and appropriated by the Afrocentic ones of them. Yes, I accused some user of hacking my account in my first days on Wikipedia because I was new to the community and didn't know much information at that time. However, this user whom I accused of hacking my account ( he didn't try to ) got blocked many times because of his bad attitude on Wikipedia, I have been also battling the Afrocentric sock puppeteers and will definitely continue doing this. Those Afro-centrists are 24/7 insulting us Egyptians everywhere and are doing their best to to dattach us from our ancient Egyptian origins and appropriate our heritage and culture and all our mistake is that we are Egyptians!!! which is very racist and offensive, Enough is Enough!!!!! I didn't think that I will encounter such racist people on a main source of knowledge like Wikipedia.Ryanoo (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You started editing in January. This happened in May. You are not new. I've looked through your edit log. Anything of substance has been battleground edits on North Africa. You need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage Yes, I started editing on January, However, I didn't start editing frequently and being little bit familiar until this June. Please read again what I wrote, I didn't say I am new, I said I was new, I was new to editing on Wikipedia until July this year, even now I am still not familiar with rules. Moreover, even the reason for suspecting this user for hacking my account at that time makes so much sense for a new user. At that time, I got two notifications from Wikipedia that there is someone trying to login to my account and I think you have seen that clearly in the report which you mentioned!. Stop What?!, Stop defending my history? leave my history and culture for the racist Afrocentric Black supremacists, If this what you mean, then my answer is "NO". Again in case you didn't read it, I am a patriotic Egyptian archaeogeneticist and academic lecturer and I have along track of strong fighting vandals here on Wikipedia and getting them blocked and admins can check my edit history, I will never ever stop fighting the nonsense of the racist Afrocentrists either here or anywhere else. By the way, what you said is totally irrelevant to the topic of the report.Ryanoo (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't have a "track of strong fighting vandals", you have a lot of false reports. It is not at all irrelevant. By posting here, you have opened yourself up to as much scrutiny as the person you reported. I'm not going to continue arguing with you. The fact that you keep calling editors racist proves you do not belong here. You have a conflict of interest and are pushing a very specific POV. You need to either stop editing this topic, or be blocked. --Tarage (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also stop editing comments after people have replied to them. I'm going to start reverting you. --Tarage (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage Don't threaten me please, I am not a teenager, I am a respected 35 years old archaeogeneticist and academic lecturer. What are you talking about?!! False reports? Anyway the admins as well as other users are free to check my history. I am replying to you and I have the right to do so, we are all users here and I have the right to reply. Sorry, you are wrong here :), I am actually here for fighting the ones who have clear racist and destructive POV ( a.k.a Afrocentrists ), I am here to construct and I hate scientific dishonest people and I say it in their face and scientific honesty and self respect are my first priority. So, you aren't ok when I call racist people racist, but you are OK, when they call me racist, just for defending my history! By the way, I don't mind leaving Wikipedia at all :), if they don't want good scientific specialist users, I think registration on Wikipedia should be by using Identification card to avoid vandalism and sock puppeting which will save the community here a great deal of time wasted in fighting sock puppeting and vandalism and will also give more credibility. Ryanoo (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ryanoo: On the internet, nobody can prove you're a respected archaeologist. Besides, we wouldn't be able to accept what you say due to Wikipedia's policy against original research, unless you get it published and it is accepted formally. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: I can prove it easily and in fact I am very willing to do so, I can provide you with my passport and identification card or If you have an office or branch in my country or even in another country in the same region (MENA), I have no problem at all to happily visit it so they can make sure of my identity and in fact I very much support that registration on Wikipedia should be by using identification card or passport or whatever way which can prove the identity of the user which will save the community a great deal of time and will give more credibility. What do you mean by accepting what I say, If you mean my edits, well, I always cite published and accepted sources. Thank youRyanoo (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

If you can prove it, congratulations, but that is not a get out of jail free card. You still need to follow Wikipedia policy, if you're willing to listen to what Tarage and I say. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: I already follow Wikipedia policy, could you tell me when I didn't?? Listen to what?? could you clarify it? what do you want me to do exactly?? the user Tarage accused me of somethings I never did, the only thing right he said is that I reported someone for hacking my account, and I said that at that time I was still new and wasn't familiar with Wikipedia rules and I did it because I got two notifications from Wikipedia regarding someone user trying to login to my account. I didn't try to define Africa or any of this nonsense. The problem was that another user was trying to add some Sub-Saharan African West African and East African countries to North Africa!!!, he was disruptively editing the page and was refusing to engage in the talk page, and after I refuted this user claims providing tons of sources on the talk page of North Africa he refused to continue the discussion on the talk page, he insulted, attacked me personally and threatened me as expected and at the end he refused to continue the discussion on the talk page and came to attack me personally and threaten me on my page. It was this user who was trying to redefine a very clear geographic location!! North Africa simply means the Mediterranean countries located in the northernmost North Africa, it is actually a straw-man argument!! it is like trying to include Norway in South Europe. Almost all the world organizations such as the World Bank, US Census, African Union itself, FAO, Population Reference Bureau, WTO and I can list tons of other world organizations if you want consider North Africa to be only the Mediterranean countries located in the extreme northernmost of the continent and I have never came across any organization which consider Sahel as part of North Africa!! and If you did, so please provide your sources. Moreover, this user has removed very much info related to the topic and added very irrelevant info, he turned the page from North Africa to African Sahel, It is like to turning the page East Asia to the page of Congo!! I didn't actually want to talk about this as it irrelevant to the topic of the report but as some user have already talked about it, then I have to reply.Ryanoo (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's start with this very report. You speak of reverts where you yourself had reverted without engaging with the other party. That violates Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. You also missed the edit notice at the top of both this page and the edit window to notify the reported user. Given the strong wording, this is almost certainly a policy. You also accuse Arboleh of vandalism, but that is not so. They were merely boldly removing content to which they thought did not conform with Wikipedia guidelines, to which you then reverted, claimed the summary was a personal attacked, and then accused them of being a vandal with this very report. Most people who disagree with you are not vandals.

Now, the edit summaries linked I believe while may not be assuming bad faith, is also not really an infraction against WP:NPA, and it was never directed at you. The edit summary Cleaned up biased and racist claims. describes the content, not the contributor, which means WP:NPA does not apply here. Once again, they've only made bold edits.

Furthermore, most of the diffs you've provided are of articles you've never even edited before. This seems very much like wikihounding to me, and point pushing behaviour. That is, you've gone and reverted pretty much all their edits over one edit you've disagreed with, and most likely had thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Given all of the above, this report will most likely end with a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban for you. Tread carefully. I strongly suggest you've read what I've written above, and take Tarage's points in too. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support boomerang topic ban of Ryanoo from Africa topics: per both Tarage and my points above. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300 First off, I have edited many of these articles as well as many other articles before long time ago before registering on Wikipedia and while wasn't logged in, so your claim of Wikihonding doesn't make any sense!. Also, I didn't fail to engage on the talk page, in fact he is the one who obviously did, I have asked in my edit summary to engage in the talk page and I mentioned him on the talk page [148] in order to discuss the edit. However, he didn't engage in the talk page and reported me for vandalism and continued to attack me personally on other users pages reply!!!, why aren't you trying about him not trying to engage me in the talk page??!! Sorry, but I feel you are clearly trying to confuse the issue by turning the table on me ( for some reason which I don't know, may I know where are you from? ) and totally ignoring what the user did. Secondly, you are talking only about one edit summary of this user in which he clearly described good faith edits as biased and racist!! when they are clearly not, while totally ignoring his other edit summaries which include very clear personal attack and false accusations and his behavior ( he reported me for vandalism when I am clearly not as well as attacking me on other users pages ). Haven't you seen the edits which I provided above in addition his other edits of attacking and harassing me on other user pages as well as reporting for vandalism when I am clearly not[149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155]. Moreover, yes one of his edit summaries isn't directed at me, so should I overlook the ones which target others??. He even has the guts to come and attack me saying some weird Afrocentric nonsense showing his real Afrocentric face, he is blaming me for defending my country's by calling me a Euro-centrist!! LOL. For those Afro-centrists, anyone who is defending his culture and history from being hijacked by them is a Euro-centrist!!. He considers me Euro-centrist because I am defending my history, and by showing the fact that my country is a Mediterranean, Middle Eastern and North African country which it is indeed is [156], [157] [158]. This Afrocentric user wants me to remove my country from its geographic location, deattach our Egyptian people from their origins and go and give it as a present to his Black people in Somalia in East Africa in Sub-Saharan Africa. It seems that this guy didn't open a map or history book in his life and is just like in a world of imagination like the rest of his fellow Afrocentrists who are trying to appropriate our culture and history ( as well as others history such as Phoenicians, Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Chinese and almost every ancient culture on this planet and probably other planets! ). Egypt is a Mediterranean, North African and Middle Eastern, so are the Egyptians!. Somalia is an East African country located in Sub-Saharan Africa, so are the Somalis, It is simple as that, he should love himself and stop appropriating and lumping himself with people who he is totally different from in every aspect. And regarding banning from editing Africa topics, that really doesn't make any sense, well, in fact I don't mind that at all, my edits are mainly focused on my country Egypt and my region ( Mediterranean basin, Middle East and North Africa) topics, I didn't edit much in Sub-Saharan Africa topics and I am not much interested in editing articles or topics related to Sub-Saharan Africans, but you can't prevent me from editing my country and my region topics and defend my history from being hijacked by the lunatic and racist Afro-centrists.Ryanoo (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ryanoo: There is no immunity for reporters. At the moment, you are more guilty of what you are reporting Arboleh for. Actually, you did accuse them of being a vandal, repeadedly trying to revert them. Also, your engagement happened only once, they indeed tried to talk with you (and you just dismissed them as a vandal) and you edit warred over North Africa.

Please just read what I've posted above and stop trying to accuse everyone of being a vandal. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You are wikihounding by the way. You found one of their edits, then decided to revert other edits of theirs, some on articles you've never even edited before (and I'm not about to prove you are those IPs). Even if you do edit with IPs on those pages, that still does not excuse the hounding and point-pushing on your behalf. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I did read all of the edits and the only one that seems to not be a bold edit is the second one. The rest have nothing to do with you, and I don't know why you report them besides wikihounding. Also, assume good faith already!Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Arboleh Again love yourself and stop trying to lump yourself with Egyptians, Middle Easterners and North Africans because you guys are simply not from the MENA area. Also please stop deattaching modern Egyptians from their ancient Egyptian origins like what you did on the Page of DNA history of Egypt because it is very racist and extremely offensive, respect other nations like others are doing with you, as there is no one trying to claim your history, please stop trying to appropriate others history. I am an Egyptian and you know and I know that Somalis are totally different racially, genetically, culturally, linguistically, and in every aspect from Egyptians and other MENAs. Your history is in Somalia which is an East African country in Sub-Saharan Africa, not in North Africa or the Middle EastRyanoo (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

References

I'm concerned about Ryanoo's trying to keep in Land of Punt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) what appears to be a self-published source from a blog.[159] There doesn't appear to be a "Lepoivre Bertrand" or perhaps "Bertrand Lepoivre" and I can't find any evidence of these chapters in the blog[160] outside the blog. I think it was originally added by an IP which I presume was Ryanoo editing logged out and then by another IP. @Ryanoo: were those IPs you and who is this Bertrand? Doug Weller talk 10:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

What, you've never heard of Bertie the Pepper? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That paragraph seems to be translated from fr:Pays de Pount, the French version of the article (or vice versa). I don't know what to make of the Charmutha series on that nant44 site. Maybe a French editor has an idea. Are there any here? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Ryanoo, I love myself thank you, and I don't care about your Middle Eastern or Mediterranean heritage but you should not scrape the term Northeast Africa from Wikipedia when it's a valid region of the Nile Valley that exists and that every scientific paper uses. If you want to claim Egypt is part of your Middle Eastern and Mediterranean heritage that's fine but don't censure valid information, this region exists and is very intertwined, the mere fact Ethiopia announced the Renaissance Dam made Egypt worried for its survival as 95% of the population lives along the Nile, and you want us to believe this region is not connected? you can keep your 18th century racist views of Egypt to yourself without censuring facts. I also would like people here who have the capability to create that Northeast Africa page to do so. Arboleh (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Arboleh LOL Which region are you talking about?? What are you talking about?? and which scientific papers are you talking about??! the link you provided totally contradict your claims and it shows that Horn Africans are totally different from Egyptians and other North African and Middle Easterners, check this admixture fractions of clusters of the link you cited !!! [161], It seems that you know nothing at all about genetics that you cited a page which totally contradicts what you said and can be used as an evidence against your claims LOL, I am an archaeogeneticist by the way. This name exists only in your dreams and your edits regarding this topic were reverted two times before by an administrator here [162] [163] for being very poorly sourced. Man, you are from Somalia which is an East African in Sub-Saharan Africa which has nothing at all to do with North African and Middle Eastern countries. Don't you like your area and looking for some ancestry in North Africa and the Middle East or something ???and Why are trying yourself to deattach yourself from your fellow brothers in East Africa brothers in Kenya, Uganda and so on and try linking yourself to North Africans and Middle Easterners?!!! stop this nonsense please, you are just embarrassing yourself and your people who are proud of their country and don't agree with nonsense at all. Again love yourself, your people and your great fellow East African and Sub-Saharan African brothers and stop trying to link yourself to people whom you are totally different from in every aspect!.Ryanoo (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop calling editors racist. Both of you. Assume some good faith dammit. --Tarage (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Ryanoo, this is about the term Northeast Africa being used by the scientific community and not about the Horn of Africa genetics which you can find on that page if you were not trolling, and anyways you're not related to the Ancient Egyptians. Learn to love your immigrant heritage and stop the hate. Arboleh (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

LOL You don't know even the nature of the link you cited which has nothing to do with what you say and totally contradicts your claims. WOW finally you showed your real Afrocentric face which you have been tying to hide, as other Afro-centrists, you couldn't hide your racism and started insulting an Egyptian for being an Egyptian!!! I won't reply to your insults and I will leave it for the administrators to deal with that. Ryanoo (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Ryanoo, If you don't behave we're gonna cut your water off :) Arboleh (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

BOTH OF YOU STOP. You BOTH don't understand that all you are doing is digging a hole deeper. You are BOTH acting like children right now. Stop posting, let everyone else view the logs and decide what to do. You are doing yourself NO favors by continuing this. --Tarage (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has clearly gone off the rails. Can we close this, maybe? No punishment needed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheDragonFire300, with all due respect I disagree with your assessment, If you got offended by my little "Ancient Egyptian" jab at Ryanoo it shows clearly the bias I am talking about within the Wikipedia editors. Ryanoo is a racist editor and the proof is all over Wikipedia and yet a jab becomes an offense that derails the issue to the point where you want to recommend nothing for his racist views and constant vandalism of the Land of Punt by using derogatory and disgusting links? I think he should be banned from Wikipedia out right, he is a racist who spews white supremacist views and considers Africans sub-human. If you keep him, it validates what I have been saying all along, that this place is full of racist editors who dont give a damn about facts as long as it supports their racial preconceived views. Arboleh (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop. Calling. Editors. Racist. I'm not going to say it again. I WILL grab an admin and see you both blocked if you continue. --Tarage (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Why do you constantly accuse others of racism? I've nothing to do with any topics you've edited until now. Besides, that close comment wasn't directed at either you or Ryanoo in particular. Please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being racist. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300, my bad I thought you had closed the discussion because of the jab, apologies. Arboleh (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Dragon, I'm afraid I disagree. It's clear to me now that both of these editors are problematic, therefor I am recommending a topic ban for both editors from Africa/Egypt topics, broadly construed. This is a supreme waste of time. --Tarage (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Very well. Withdrawn my close proposal. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, Can you please point to a page where I demeaned Wikipedia users for their racial background like Ryanoo does? So please don't equate me to him, if you are offended by my use of the word "racist" that is your personal opinion but Ryanoo comments all over the place prove you wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arboleh (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaking me for someone who cares about your squabble. You will stop calling editors racist or you will be blocked. Period. --Tarage (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Support topic ban for both editors Judging by this, both editors are using WP:STICKs with a bend against each other. Could an interaction ban be appropriate? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: As I've been asking folks below, what is the justification for this proposal? If we're going to enact an IBAN, that makes sense. But a TBAN suggests we believe an editor cannot edit constructively within a given topic. I think there is some evidence for that in the case of Ryanoo, but all I see in the case of Arboleh is that they are unable to get along with Ryanoo (which may or may not be due to some poking going on with the aggressiveness in Ryanoo's responses). What is the evidence that Arboleh merits a ban from the topic in its entirety, or that they didn't engage in collaborative efforts, or that their editing in this area is tendentious? A TBAN seems inappropriate to counter interaction issues with another editor, and while I've seen a lot of negative response to the language each editor is using to describe the other, I haven't seen any uninvolved editors point out issues in Arboleh's editing in this discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Part of the rationale for a topic ban is that these users seem to be POV pushing (Most edits by Ryanoo "has been battleground edits on North Africa" according to Tarage, Arboleh seems to be calling anyone who disagrees with them on this topic "racist") which is why a double topic ban may be needed as well as an IBAN. On a side note, pings only work if you sign in the same edit, I can tell you tried a ping. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 13:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: Yeah, I screwed up the ping. But where are the diffs of Arboleh calling anyone who disagrees a racist? I saw Arboleh call Ryanoo racist, and to be fair, Ryanoo has been skewing on the edge of that in his overblown commentaries about his own expertise and his bad-faith allegations about the motivations of anyone who disagrees with him trying to promote an Afrocentrist agenda. But when did Arboleh call other users racist, and where did he call Ryanoo racist without any provocation? We seem to have jumped quickly to that conclusion, but all the really ugly diffs and quotations people are citing are tied only to Ryanoo, and until Arboleh got riled up by Ryanoo's allegations, I didn't see such language, nor have I seen it directed at other editors. I think that's why I'm concerned--Tarage's (understandable) frustration led to an immediate call for a TBAN, but I'm seeing some dangerous false equivalency going on here, and I've seen NO evidence that Arboleh seems to be calling anyone who disagrees with them on this topic "racist"; where are the diffs of that, which is a pretty significant accusation? Again, a read-through of the North Africa talkpage shows a history of battleground behavior from Ryanoo against a number of editors, but I don't see problematic behavior from Arboleh until his motives get questioned in the middle of a condescending tirade and he's on the receiving end of a backhanded accusation of subverting the truth. Grandpallama (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify--Arboleh edit-warring and incorrectly labeling others' edits as vandalism is problematic behavior, but I'm not sure that's worth a TBAN. More in line with block. Grandpallama (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose bans for Ryanoo and Arboleh

I see a few potential outcomes. Note that all topic bans are broadly construed. topic bans and indefinite unless noted otherwise. You may suport multiple proposals. Feel free to support a proposal outside what I've lined below.

Pinging Tarage and SemiHypercube, since they've advocated bans before.

1. Both Ryanoo and Arboleh are banned from Africa and Egypt topics.
2. Ryanoo only is banned from Africa and Egypt topics.
3. Arboleh only is banned from Africa and Egypt topics.
4. Ryanoo and Arboleh are interaction banned against each other.
5. Ryanoo is one way interaction banned from Arboleh.
6. Arboleh is one way interaction banned from Ryanoo.
7. Oppose any ban (mutually exclusive)

• Support proposal 2 and 4: per my previous posts. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 4, but not against 2, 3, 5, or 6: Frankly this is a bit verbose and unlikely to reach consensus but sure. The problem is from both sides and I see a LOT of POV pushing and pointless bickering. I also see racism claims being thrown around. --Tarage (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  To clarify, but not against means you will not oppose 2, 3, 5 and 6? Anyway, I think a formal proposal for bans may be neccesary. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  It means I am not opposed to any of those passing. I support them, I just support 1 and 4 more. They both need to be banned from that topic, and they both need an interaction ban. But I'll take what I can get. --Tarage (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 4 per User:Tarage. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 23:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 4 per above. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 4 per User:TheDragonFire300's observations. I see appalling behavior here from Ryanoo, and some less than ideal behavior from Arboleh, but the latter seems to be in exasperated response. Ryanoo seems to lack competence to edit WP, and I suspect a TBAN here will be the beginning of a slow spiral toward an indefinite block of some sort down the line. Grandpallama (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 2 and 4 The reason why things have cooled off between myself and Ryanoo was because I was wise enough to ask for page protection for the North Africa page. If admins hasn’t intervened, I’m positive we would have been at square one. I think Arboleh may be reacting this way because Ryanoo seems to be trying to game the system to ban users he clashes with (tried the above case with Arboleh, opened a random SPI on me) rather than civilly discussing issues. I also agree with @Grandpallama: Itaren (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 4 per Itaren. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Just from what I've seen on this thread I'm already sick of both of you-there seems to be a lot of anger and insults and precious little that is constructive here.

Statements such as 'I am actually here for fighting the ones who have clear racist and destructive POV a.k.a Afrocentrists' or 'I am here so as not to leave my history and culture for the racist Afrocentric Black supremacists' hardly give the impression of someone who is here to help cultivate an encyclopaedia.

I would also note whilst we're debating this that Ryanoo has stated 'regarding banning from editing Africa topics...in fact I don't mind that at all,my edits are mainly focused on my country Egypt and my region(Mediterranean basin,Middle East and North Africa topics'. So I would add the caveat that 'Africa-related topics' covers ALL of the African continent and related themes. We don't need another round of North Africa vs Sub-Saharan Africa-which is the real Africa?

So it's

• Support 1 and 4 with that caveat. Lemon martini (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Lemon martini:Both of the quotations you included are from Ryanoo, so I'm curious as to why you say you see equally bad behavior from Arboleh. Grandpallama (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 4 per Tarage. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Kzl55:, why would interaction issues between these two users necessitate that both of them be topic-banned? Even a cursory glance at the article in question shows only one of these editors having difficulty with collaborative editing and failing to show good faith. I continue to be mystified at what seems to me to be unjustified support for a TBAN of Arboleh. If the expectation is that Arboleh needs to be sanctioned for having suggested Ryanoo's editing is racist (which the interactions show may not be entirely unjustified), that is only grounds for an IBAN. It doesn't demonstrate an inability to edit in the topic area. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  Is there a reason you are pinging everyone who doesn't respond in the way you'd like them to? You should stop. --Tarage (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  I've asked three people to justify seeking a topic ban for a user on the basis that the user is calling "anyone who disagrees with him a racist" when the diffs don't back this up--saying that I'm pinging "everyone" is just as unfounded as some of the other statements you made earlier. I'm also worried that your own frustration with the preceding conversation led to a premature call for a topic ban for a user based upon declarations about his editing that weren't backed up by any provided diffs. Is there a policy that I've violated by seeking reasoning from some people for their support? No? Then my response is that the next time you prepare to tell me what I should or shouldn't do, you should stop. Grandpallama (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Grandpallama: I also agree with Tarage on this. I would suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 18:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)(

  If you think my responses to the two most recent votes constitute bludgeoning, you're free to take it up with an admin. That said, I think I've replied enough to this topic, so the end result is the same, either way. Grandpallama (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 4, could live with 2, 3, 5, or 6 per Tarage. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 4 only, per Itaren and Grandpallama. Editor(s) may appeal the sanction in six months. Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrative close needed on this thread

Consensus determination and close needed. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Dr Nobody's behaviour at and around Irish Bull Terrier

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

---

Dr Nobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Irish Bull Terrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well, I wish it hadn't come to this, but I tried just about everything else I can think of to get through to this editor. They have repeatedly demonstrated a ownership mentality about this article, see here, here, here, and here. They have also apparently refuse to learn how to use references and sources correctly on Wikipedia. They have been pointed to various policy pages regarding these policies, but has not bothered to read them or doesn't care as evidenced by their repeated insertion of unreliable and incorrectly referenced sources. I can provide more diffs if required, but since it is pretty contained I didn't think it would be hard to see.

Like I said at the beginning, I wish it hadn't come to this. zchrykng (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional note, I have no opinion on what is the "correct" version of the article. I ended up there and interacting with this editor solely through recent changes patrolling and have been trying to help since. zchrykng (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I've just reverted his latest edit, as the "source", even if reliable, doesn't actually source the text anyway. I'll wait to see if there's a response to this thread. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I sincerely hope they respond, but I doubt they will, at least in a positive way, at this point. zchrykng (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite I feel like I need to add Competence is required, I didn’t hear that, and Right great wrongs to the list of issues. zchrykng (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what this person is talking about I referenced a change to the article from a reliable source. I started the article several years back as many of this breed were being put down as American Pit Bull Terriers which they are not. DR NOBODY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nobody (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dr Nobody: The text you added was sourced to this page.

Your text: "The main difference between the IBT and the APBT is the head shape." Which text at your source verifies the claim that head shape is the primary differentiating factor between these two breeds of dog? This is particularly confusing because neither "pit" nor "APBT", your abbreviation for American Pit Bull Terrier, appear in your source at all.

Your text: "The APBT head is of medium length with a broad flat skull and a wide deep muzzle" Which text at your source verifies this information?

Your text: "whereas the IBT the head is short and deep throughout with a distinct stop reference" This appears to be referenced to the "Description" section at your source, which says the dog has "a broad head and very strong jaws. The muzzle is short and the cheek muscles distinct. The stop is clearly defined." Could you change your text so it more accurately restates the source's text?

2602:306:BC31:4AA0:905B:33DA:5576:AFE7 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully this meets WIKIs requirements as I have referenced more clearly. Dr Nobody (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dr Nobody: I just undid your most recent edit because copying someone else's words and pasting them, even if you include a citation, is a form of stealing called "plagiarism" and of course, we don't allow it. Thus, the previous concerns about your text still stand. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:905B:33DA:5576:AFE7 (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

We are allowed to quote people.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Have redone again for you but it doesnt show ? Dr Nobody (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

All that was done ('redone') was to revert the edit by 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:905B:33DA:5576:AFE7 which meant a continuation of edit warring and seemingly took no notice of the allegations of plagiarism. It has been reverted again. Eagleash (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I rewrote the piece there was no plagiarism. I would like to complain about this harassment please Dr Nobody (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of this ongoing ANI, but did a "crash course" bullet-point list, of how to do it right and stay out of trouble, for this editor at Talk:Irish Bull Terrier#Reboot. I think that between this and just the drama of being dragged into ANI (especially after returning from a long absence) is probably enough, and thus oppose any sanctions at this point. Give the editor time to absorb the advice and get re-acquainted with how Pickyweedia operates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, I have no objections to that course of action, just as long as they actually follow through. Nothing would make me happier than they learn how Wikipedia works and start making useful contributions. If someone wants to close this, be my guest. It can be reopened or a new thread started if the problem recurs. zchrykng (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC); edited 03:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yep. It's pretty typical for first-time reports to result in no action and for a renewed-problem report to be necessary later and action then taken. It's not the most expedient process, but it's fair and helps us retain editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That said, I think only so much WP:ROPE ought to be extended here, since the primary issue is WP:OWN, and it's set to full throttle. That their having started the article does not give them some form of elevated status in content discussions is the policy point which needs to be most clearly made to this user, and if they do not show signs of understanding this and adopting a thoroughly collaborative approach from here, I think this should be brought back sooner, rather than later, and serious thought given to a short-term block or even a TBAN at that time. Snow ^{let's rap} 16:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Given the narrowness of this editor's contributions I think a tban for dogs, period ("broadly construed", of course, because we always say that ritually no matter what) is in order. If he's unable to operate outside that area for a while I doubt he'll be able to contribute usefully at all. EEng 20:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  EEng - I agreed to mentor this new editor after he said this at AN. Not sure how we ended up here, too. It appears this newbie may be in hiding after the good scolding he received at his TP & here. He hasn't posted anything since Nov 11th. Can we close this discussion and give me a chance to mentor him, first - if he decides to return? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  It's your funeral. EEng 21:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User making threats

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

---

Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but a user (who is likely a sock), TormentForment (talk · contribs) is making threats about crashing an airplane and stabbing one or more editors. Whether the threats are credible I don’t know, but if you see something, say something, so I’m reporting for admin attention. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 15:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It's already been dealt with, but thanks for the report! This is garden variety LTA vandalism; no need to do much more than RBI. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: What’s “RBI” and “LTA”? Also, the point about “garden variety vandalism” was exactly my point about see something say something - never assume that something is just silly disruption, always take threats seriously. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 15:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Already dealt with, but in terms of reporting these things, you should not report them here but send an email to emergencywikimedia.org with details, as it says in the red editnotice above the edit window on this page (or use the form at WP:EMERGENCY). Also, Writ keeper is referring to WP:RBI and WP:LTA. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TL;DR: what Ivanvector said LTA is "long-term abuse"; a single person who has been disrupting Wikipedia in a recognizable pattern for a long time. RBI is "revert, block, ignore". This is certainly not garden-variety vandalism per se, but it's par for the course for this particular user; by and large, you're absolutely right about taking threats seriously, but in this case, we've seen enough of it to be able to just remove it, block the account, and move on. Incidentally, if you see a threat of violence against oneself or others, the best thing to do is to contact these people rather than report it here; that will help get the most effective response while minimizing the publicizing of the threats themselves. All that said, I do genuinely thank you for the report; it's a good instinct to have, even if it wasn't technically optimal here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Terryfirut

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

---

• Terryfirut (talk · contribs · logs)

The user made a number of unnecessary edits to raise his number of edits. May violate WP:GAME. --158.182.178.168 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether this is gaming or tests by a new user these edits are certainly not helpful, almost reminds me of subtle numbers vandalism, but changing the windspeeds back and forth between 155 and 155.2 (among other numbers that they changed to windspeed to) does look like an attempt to inflate their edit count. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

list of suspect diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182]

The discussion above is closed. 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 rangeblock request

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

---

Hi. Earlier this month I requested this rangeblock, which Berean Hunter helped with. However, the IP is back, shifting from the 39.57 range to the 39.44 range. Here are some from today:

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

I reported the first one this morning at WP:AIV, but it went stale due to the backlog there. I've just reported the second one. Can this range also be blocked? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's a bigger range ... but there's practically nothing on it for the last couple of weeks except this editor, so I've rangeblocked it for 2 weeks. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Dan56 won't take "you're wrong" for an answer

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

---

Dan56 (talk · contribs) complained about having two reviews from Rolling Stone magazine on U2's Boy (album). Several people told him it was fine and stated that having two reviews from one source was not a problem. He didn't agree and opened an RfC, which did not go his way either. He then made a series of edits to make it clear he thought the Rolling Stone reviews should be two entries and created a new "retrospective professional ratings" section. First, this violates his own position that an article should only have "10 reviews" as it's at has 14 between the two sections. Second, it was done without discussion. I'm requesting a topic ban for Dan from this album article at the very least and possibly from the topic of U2 or possibly music in general. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Dan56 Please drop this WP:STICK in my personal opinion this is extremely trivial debate for which an RfC is already tried. Please utilize your time elsewhere. (In my personal opinion I find 2 ratings from same agency is confusing, but the talkpage group feels it is ok. so be it) Time to move on guys, there are better topics to discuss than whether to add 1 rating or 2 ratings in a rating table. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

My edits 👏 respected the RfC decision 👏 to keep both scores 👏; also, I never said an article should have "10 reviews", but that a ratings template should adhere to the outlined 10-score limit. If you are going to try to slander me, can you please do your homework first please? You are absolutely insufferable in your frequent accusations and complaints towards me. Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray:, there is no stick. I don't need discussion to add verifiable content to an article. Walter does not own the article, and he is misconstruing my changes; I've added an entire section, mostly of prose. Have you even bothered to look at it? Dan56 (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment - What does that even have to do with the RFC - that's no ratings table. Complaining about an involved closure is also usually valid. And no edit needs to be discussed before if it has never been contested or discussed upon per WP:BOLD. I see no reason for a ban or block; or even a warning. Lurking shadow (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Dan for the record, I only commented after checking all your recent edits [183] and it is true you added another section and another table for the ratings. You are repeatedly failing to generate consensus on the talk page before making edits that others are protesting against and this is a problem. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

What "repeatedly" and what "others"? Walter is the only editor who has protested these recent edits. Dan56 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

If you cannot even offer an opinion on the merits of my edits ([184]), why are you even here other than to join Walter in vilifying me? Dan56 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, again Walter: My edits 👏 respected the RfC decision 👏 to keep both scores 👏 My addition/edits were valid; you cannot just revert them without explanation like this; and to have the nerve to open this thread to vilify me? Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Walter Görlitz you reverted Dan and immediately opened this ANI thread, did you tried discussing this content dispute of 2 subsections/ratings with Dan before opening this thread? This thread should have been started on Article talk first. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes I did. it is my considered opinion that Dan didn't get his way and he's going to continue to manipulate the article until he does. I did not try to discuss, but that was a rhetorical question as you can see my edit history. Another discussion isn't needed. And for the record Dan, you're right, did not "say" that the article should only have 10 reviews, you "wrote" Include no more than ten reviews in table form. We're more than four over that, and they're all in tables. It appears to be just another attempt to push your point that there were two reviews from Rolling Stone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The Question whether this U2 article needs 14 ratings or 10 ratings and if it needs 2 or 1 subsection, is a Content Dispute. ANI does not discuss the content disputes, please start a thread on the article talk. Walter Görlitz, you are claiming here that you started this thread to preempt a presumed manipulation of article. Again that is a content dispute, and needs to be discussed on the talk page when that happens. I see no good reason for this "preemptive thread" and I suggest this thread be closed, since no discussion has taken place on the talk page for this specific sets of questioned edits which is basically a content dispute not handled by ANI.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason I opened this ANI is not whether that's the question, it's to discuss whether Dan56's behaviour is or is not appropriate. At first, he was edit warring to remove what he felt was more than 10 reviews. Then he opened a discussion. When he didn't like the answer, he opened an RfC. When he didn't like that it was closed, he "fixed" it again, modifying the article to what he wanted. That's why the ANI was opened. The content itself is secondary to this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz as far as I can see, Dan56 has not made any policy violation. He has made bold edits that you consider inappropriate and you reverted, those edits do not constitute any blockable offence or policy violation. Start a thread on talk and discuss this per WP:BRD and follow WP:DR. Not giving any chance to Dan56 to discuss this and bringing this straight to ANI instead of starting a thread on the article talk first, is actually something that is concerning on your part.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Article needs full protection while these editors who should know better are edit-warring, and things need to be discussed for consensus on the article's talkpage. Also, Dan56 and Walter Görlitz, you both need to provide a detailed and informative edit summary for every single edit to the article, not just when you feel like it. Softlavender (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I understand what both DBigXray and Softlavender are saying. I suppose I overreacted. I agree to close this ANI and continue discussing on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Dan56 and RfC closing

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

---

Dan56 (talk · contribs) opened an RfC and badgered the four editors who disagreed with him while it was running. The Legobot closed the expired RfC template, and I offered a summary based on the majority opinion. Nearly ten days later, he protested claiming that I shouldn't have closed it as an involved editor, causing a reactivation of the RfC. My claim is that the RfC was closed by the bot and I was summarizing, which is what I believe WP:RFCEND No. 5 to state. Could we please have some clarity on the situation? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:RFCEND: "As an RfC is a discussion with accompanying solicitation of comment, ending an RfC consists of ending that solicitation. That means removing it from the RfC lists" (as happens when the tag expires and the RfC removes it) "This is distinct from ... closing the discussion, which means someone lists conclusions and discourages further discussion." Dan56 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Note - Only three of the six who voted were previously uninvolved in the content dispute that led to the RfC; one of those three voted one way, the other two voted another. More input from uninvolved editors would be appropriate. Dan56 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: editors should not close RFCs when they've voted in them; see WP:BADNAC. Stop edit warring to reinstate your close. And please don't wikilawyer about how "the bot closed it, not me". @Dan56: stop edit warring to remove the close. Go to WP:AN and contest the close there. Notice how WP:CLOSECHALLENGE does not advise people to edit war with the closer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

MasterofAllWorlds and NOTTHERE

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

---

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

MasterofAllWorlds made about 30 edits to Wikipedia, most or possibly all of them have been reverted. Apparently, they want to tell us the TRUTH that Americacentrism is evil [185], [186], [187], [188]. I do not see any useful contributions. Could we please stop this activity now, before it sucks out too much time from the community?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Ymblanter's proposal. Also, according to this thread, this user seems to have some WP:CIR issues.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support and nothing of value was lost. --Tarage (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Looking at the edits, not all are even about America-centrism. [189], [190], [191]. Editor made an attempt to open a discussion: [192]. There are clearly many useful contributions and Ymblanter had too narrow of a focus when looking. If the editor is making problematic edits on Crimea, a topic band might be more appropriate at this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• "MasterofAllWorlds made about 30 edits to Wikipedia, most or possibly all of them have been reverted." You clearly have no interest in researching your assertions.MasterofAllWorlds (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@MasterofAllWorlds: The easiest way to disprove the assertion would be to go to your contributions page and find an edit that is still in place. Copy the "diff" link where your edit was implemented, make sure it's actually in the article, and then share the link here. Walter Görlitz's post above provides a good example. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

He provided multiple examples.MasterofAllWorlds (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

While this has not been reverted, this one has. That doesn't really help with your counter-claim that most of your edits have not been reverted. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support under WP:CIR. The user literally said, several times, that the position that "most countries support Ukraine's claims to Crimea" can't be true simply because China doesn't support said claims. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I've had to revert the user's edits made since this ANI thread was opened. Timesink. Plus most all of his edits seem to be some sort of inaccurate POV-pushing. Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Regstuff, Jaggi Vasudev, Isha Foundation

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

---

Note: I'm involved in a move and content discussion/dispute at Jaggi Vasudev and Isha Foundation. I left a note on Regstuff's talk page about COI issues on 2 November. He's responded to it yesterday on the Jaggi Vasudev talk page. I've chosen to address this here.

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

Regstuff became a member of Wikipedia in May 2010. His first edits were promotional edits on Isha Foundation. The following are the articles he has created:

• Action for Rural Rejuvenation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha Foundation programme)
• AYUSH-ISHA Organic Health Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha Foundation programme; merged yesterday)
• Isha Gramotsavam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha Foundation sports festival)
• Isha Home School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (An Isha Foundation school; merged yesterday)
• Isha Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha Foundation's wellness centre; merged yesterday)
• Isha Vidhya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha foundation's literacy programme; created in tandem with a single purpose account named Sallyforisha)
• Isha Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha Foundation's primary business)
• Project GreenHands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha Foundation programme)
• Yaksha (festival) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Isha foundation arts festival)

These are other articles Regstuff has created which are indirectly linked to Isha:

• Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [Isha Foundation is an awardee]
• D. Balakrishna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): 1 external link and one citation to an ISHA blog.
• Rama Ravi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): 1 source from The Hindu cited for her performance at the ISHA centre; another external link to the ISHA blog
• Chorabari Glacier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): A Jaggi Vasudev article in the Times of India cited as a source and an ISHA blog cited as a source
• Abhilash Tomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Uses another ISHA blog as a source
• Rajiv Gandhi Khel Abhiyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): A "rural sports initiative" collaborating with the Isha foundation

Unrelated:

• Tiger of Pilibhit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mary Jobe Akeley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pulney Andy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Janardhan Mitta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Heliopithecus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deleted:

• Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While Regstuff has a number of contributions to other articles, most substantial ones involve promoting Jaggi Vasudev and the Isha foundation. For example,

• Thaipusam: promoting the Linga Bhairavi temple of the Isha Foundation
• Shiva: Promoting Jaggi Vasudev and the Adiyogi Shiva statue of the Isha Foundation
• Malladihalli Raghavendra: a guru of Vasudev
• International Day of Yoga: Jaggi Vasudev promotion
• Kundalini: Jaggi Vasudev promotion
• Lingam: Isha blog promotion

There are more. There are also a number of edits that are blatantly promotional involving external links to the Isha blog.

There are some other articles where Regstuff has added substantial content unrelated to Jaggi Vasudev or Isha, but these are far fewer in comparison.

While looking this up, I noticed a few (now stale) promotional accounts such as Sallyforisha and Veeru.isha. It's possible that more *isha accounts can be unearthed simply by searching through usernames or looking for edits which involve ishafoundation.org. (I'm not going to bother notifying these users about this ANI.)

Finally, there is a curious overlap between Regstuff and banned paid editor, Bilingual2000. 6 minutes after the creation of Rama Ravi by Regstuff, Bilingual2000 makes a bunch of edits. Regstuff resumes editing a few minutes after that.

If you look at Regstuff's global contributions, you'll find that he's been promoting Jaggi Vasudev and Isha in a number of Indian language wikis including Tamil, Telugu, Hindi, and Kannada. On Wikibooks, he's created a book with reference links to the Isha blog. On Wikimedia Commons, all of his uploads bar one are of brochure photographs of Jaggi Vasudev or the Isha Foundation.

I'm convinced that Regstuff has a conflict of interest in all matters Isha and Jaggi Vasudev. This is evident from the volume of created and edited content across multiple wikis centred around these topics as well as the active policing against anything negative about either the foundation or Jaggi Vasudev. Considering all the articles he's created promoting Isha's various businesses and activities, I'm quite convinced that he's also either a paid editor or someone actively engaged in SEO manipulation. The is further evident from all the disguised link spam he has gotten up to over the years. Then there's the momentary overlap with a banned paid editor. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban for this editor. Appears to be massive UPE by the same site-banned editor Bilingual2000. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Ditto, and if they're not a UPE then that's one helluva of COI, and as for the spam...It seems pretty clear that by now the terms of use have been broken. Many few times. ——SerialNumber54129 17:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block at minimum and preferably a siteban - This isn't some case of someone not doing the homework and making honest mistakes (well, as honest as paid SEO/PR hacks can get); this is someone attempting to broker Wikipedia's goodwill for their client's personal gain. I would also bring this up on WP:COI/N to get some more eyes looking at the article, its citations, etc. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Lose the editor, lose the pages Do not reward this type of behavior. Purge it all. --Tarage (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit. This looks very much like a cult. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

yes, Guy guessed it right. To be precise, "an elephant murdering cult. [193] And the cult members guarding these pages wont allow anything other than puffery for the leader. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support siteban and nuking all these pages. A CU will also be helpful as I think there may be sleepers accounts as the previous account was site banned. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Guy, firing a superlaser at this mess. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support and Nuke. This will consume some salvageable stuff but I don't give a damn.∯WBG^converse 18:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Pi zero, the above promotional material is related to Regstuff's wikibook creations also. You may want to delete them. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

CHanging t series link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.210.57 (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

...But you've never edited until this post? Think I hear quacking. Home Lander (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This report would be useless anyway since it is too vague. Recommend  Close and a possible referral to WP:SPI. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Beyond My Ken

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

---

• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Riverdale, Bronx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This editor's WP:BATTLEGROUND methods over a single word are making it difficult to make progress at this article, and wasting everyone's time.

• Edit warring over article content: [194] [195] [196] [197]
• Posting a frivolous and POV-worded rfc after consensus has been reached on the talk page: [198]
• Personal attack on one of the editors involved in this dispute (in edit summary): [199]

I would normally give more warning, but I see that this editor is no stranger to ANI, and I am certain he knows what he's doing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Without comment on his methods of interaction here, has anyone addressed the point of his objection? Has there been any wide discussion over the use or non-use of words like "affluent", broadly? If there hasn't been, maybe it is time to have one. If there has been, maybe by directing him to that consensus, you would have a reason to say he's wrong. On the edit-warring issue, however, yes, he's clearly edit warring and should stop immediately. He's been around long enough to know better. If that's all you have on the personal attack front, I'm sure SMC has heard worse, and I'm not sure that's the straw needed to break any camel's back... --Jayron32 21:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There's also this: [200] And while SMC may or may not have been offended, incivility affects all of us, not just the target. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And there's also someone blowing off steam and not directing anything that SMC (dare I speak on his behalf) hasn't seen before a million times. Maybe it's an ENGVAR thing, but what BMK said here is pretty much nothing in the big scheme of things. Of course, someone could conjure up a "personal attack" out of it, but really, there's nothing there. How about someone ask if the recipient was offended? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to mention edit warring over posting the frivolous rfc at Template:Centralized discussion: [201] [202] Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I said to him earlier he may be climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. However, this isn't at the point where ANI can or should do anything. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I suppose this is the point where there's a determined effort to get him. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Late to the party here. I delivered [203] to User talk:Beyond My Ken a copy of the prescribed {{Ds/alert}} template that ArbCom (which is entitled by policy to make such demands) expects to be left for editors who appear to be doing things that could subject them to discretionary sanctions (or are just editing a lot in the topic area); in this case it was ad hominem personalization of MoS-related disputes, at the RfC in question. I didn't even notice who I was leaving the message for; it's routine stuff (especially after ArbCom finally got around to editing the template, which they exclusively control, to look more like the simple notice it is and less like a warning or threat, which it has never been). Though the editwarring notice BMK received [204] immediately thereafter was such a warning.
  • This was met with BMK showing up on my talk page [205] to "ban" me from ever posting to theirs, or ever using ping to this editor, unless I was dropping off a necessary notice (like I actually did!). Took a while to realize it was connected to that alert and to the RfC. There is no policy or guideline under which you can really ban people from talk pages; rather, people involved in a protracted dispute (there isn't one between me and BMK, that I know of) are well advised to honor such requests, to avoid things like an eventual interaction ban. There is no basis of any kind to "forbid" pings, and they're de rigeur these days for many purposes. Basically, this strange outburst is completely inconsistent with how Wikipedia treats inter-editor communication.
  • I couldn't really place BMK other than generally recognizing the username, so I looked at Editor Interaction Analyzer, and it suggests no topical pattern other than infoboxes (about which I've become neutral and frequently try to act as an informal mediator, since i-box squabbles keep going to ArbCom). If BMK is pursuing some years-long grudge about infoboxes (I have been critical of some excesses of the "kill the inboxes" crowd because of the level of disruption some of them have generated), this made my {{Ds/alert}} doubly relevant, since the same DS case also covers infoboxes, as a "style" matter.
  • I went and looked at the RfC again to see where it was going, and guess what? It was started by BMK (I tend not to see who starts RfCs, I just read the question; WP:FRS feeds me a lot of them). It's a non-neutral RfC that seeks to explicitly declare that a consensus in an RfC at MoS talk isn't valid because it was not advertised on WP:CENT. BMK's been very explicit about this. We all know that's not how WP consensus works; such a view would invalidate 99.99999% of consensus discussions, since they're not on CENT. So, all the editwarring and other crap being reported above is also in perpetuation of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing against MoS.
  • It's also disturbing to me that I've been here about 13 years, yet the Interaction Analyzer shows that BMK has over ten times the ANI posting rate that I do. That suggests BMK gets in a lot of trouble, is addicted to WP:DRAMA, or both. How on earth does any non-admin rack up over 2,800 posts to ANI? Just noticed this: plus another 1200+ to WP:AN, a board almost no non-admins post to without some special reason (I've posted there 26 times total). The mind boggles.

PS: I didn't notice BMK's edit summary jab or "bullshit notice" stuff until I saw the diffs above just now. I don't think it's an NPA breach, but it probably isn't civil. I'd be more concerned about whether it's part of what may be an "unconstructively fight with people about MoS-related stuff" theme. (We have way too much of that.) There was no indication of animosity toward me from BMK when they asked me ArbCom candidate questions [206], so the "your candidacy was a joke" thing makes no contextual sense. I.e., this appears to be "pick a fight about any random stuff from old times, just because someone crossed me" activity, centered on style-related squabbling. Does all this stack up to anything? I'll leave that up to others, since I'm "involved". But I don't actually feel involved; more like a mailman being blamed for someone receiving a bill they don't want to pay.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And when you say "over 2,800" I'm sure you mean "more than 2,800". But meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes! Good catch. This is what I get for wallowing in TV shows on my wikibreak. It's all "ain't" this and "don't got none" that ....  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've got 3600 edits to ANI, and everyone knows I'm perfectly normal. And you've got 800 edits to MOS plus 4000 to Talk:MOS, so I'd soft-pedal the abnormal-hangout talk if I were you. EEng 23:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: I propose that you be topic-banned from any discussion at ANI where you don't provide an entertaining image. It's one of the few things that make patrolling ANI worthwhile.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This is stupid as hell, once again. Requesting a close. --Tarage (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IPs on NYC-area railroad articles

For about six months now, a series of IPs geolocating to around Ossining, New York and New York City - almost certainly the same editor at home and work - have been making poor-quality changes to railroad-related articles. Most articles are related to Metro-North Railroad and Long Island Rail Road, though some are farther afield. Although some edits they make are correct, most are incorrect, useless, or outright vandalism. They repeatedly soft-revert when their poor edits are reverted, ignore talk page messages, leave no edit summaries, and refuse to discuss on talk pages. The frequently-changing IPs and refusal to engage with the community makes working with this editor impossible. The currently active IP is 69.117.14.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

list of IPs and ranges

Sorted 17 IPv4 addresses: 67.85.54.157 67.87.197.84 68.196.140.27 69.113.130.30 69.113.133.238 69.113.135.58 69.117.12.70 69.117.12.248 69.117.14.113 69.117.14.252 69.117.15.126 69.117.15.179 69.118.168.191 74.88.69.251 74.90.22.232 74.90.23.159 166.109.0.236 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 2057 1 1 67.85.54.157 contribs 1 1 67.87.197.84 contribs 1 1 68.196.140.27 contribs 1 1 69.113.130.30 contribs 1024 2 69.113.132.0/22 contribs 1024 6 69.117.12.0/22 contribs 1 1 69.118.168.191 contribs 1 1 74.88.69.251 contribs 1 1 74.90.22.232 contribs 1 1 74.90.23.159 contribs 1 1 166.109.0.236 contribs 779 1 1 67.85.54.157 contribs 1 1 67.87.197.84 contribs 1 1 68.196.140.27 contribs 1 1 69.113.130.30 contribs 1 1 69.113.133.238 contribs 1 1 69.113.135.58 contribs 256 2 69.117.12.0/24 contribs 512 4 69.117.14.0/23 contribs 1 1 69.118.168.191 contribs 1 1 74.88.69.251 contribs 1 1 74.90.22.232 contribs 1 1 74.90.23.159 contribs 1 1 166.109.0.236 contribs 17 1 1 67.85.54.157 contribs 1 1 67.87.197.84 contribs 1 1 68.196.140.27 contribs 1 1 69.113.130.30 contribs 1 1 69.113.133.238 contribs 1 1 69.113.135.58 contribs 1 1 69.117.12.70 contribs 1 1 69.117.12.248 contribs 1 1 69.117.14.113 contribs 1 1 69.117.14.252 contribs 1 1 69.117.15.126 contribs 1 1 69.117.15.179 contribs 1 1 69.118.168.191 contribs 1 1 74.88.69.251 contribs 1 1 74.90.22.232 contribs 1 1 74.90.23.159 contribs 1 1 166.109.0.236 contribs

Several of the IPs, including 69.117.12.248 and range 69.113.128.0/21, have been given blocks for vandalism at AIV. However, the nature of the edits (the disruptive nature is not always obvious at first glance) and the frequently shifting IPs which make repeated warnings difficult means that sometimes my AIV reports are turned down. I would like to see ranges 69.113.128.0/21 and 69.117.12.0/22 (where the majority of this disruption is coming from) blocked for a longer period, and for other appearances of this disruptive editor to be blocked on site. Pinging @Epicgenius and Cards84664: who have also been involved in dealing with this disruptive editing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Also see the prior SPI reports here. Thank you for compiling this. Cards84664 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the SPI, I don't think these IPs are Conrailman4122 socks (despite the same geographic area) due to their lack of edit summaries, talk page usage, and hard reverts. Meatpuppetry is possible, but this is probably just a separate disruptive editor. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I found a slip-up by the other sock, see this one. They used edit summaries on October 19th and 20th. Both that ip and the latest one above edited Roosevelt Field (shopping mall). Cards84664 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisting. Cards84664 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Cards84664: in case you didn't get my ping here, you changed the IP listed in a closed SPI with this edit which made it appear that IP 67.87.196.115, who is admittedly User:Conrailman4122, was also admitting to using IP 69.117.14.252. Based on that I blocked the 69.117.14.252 IP incorrectly. I have reversed that block after realizing you had overwritten the original IP in the closed SPI report, but it still makes it confusing for any admin reviewing Pi.1415926535's concerns above.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Fob.schools

• Fob.schools (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Steven (Editor) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BT Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I could do with some help with an issue regarding the above user and I will be laying out everything here. It's to do with a series of edits (diff) to the BT Group telcommuncations towers subsection. This editor had already done similar pattern of edits to this section as well as the other subsections which are all under its parent section "Buildings and facilities" (see diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). I undone those changes with a clear edit summary, citing the Main and See also templates to its respective category/articles as well as WP:SUMMARY - a key importance to this section (see diff) - this was all last month. So that was it until the editor returned back yesterday to do those edits to the towers subsection. I undone these changes with a clear edit summary again, also mentioning that this was mentioned before (see diff) and "You added citation needed tags regarding BT Tower in London, the citations are there". The editor then reverted my edit today (see diff).

Two reasons for coming here: 1. The editor posted on my talk page about me being the owner and "If you remove citation requests again without replacing them with references, you will be reported on ANI." (see diff - I reverted this and also mentioned not to bother posting on my talk page - this is because I've already encountered this user before in the past and I prefer to stay away from this user, just unfortunate we happen to be editing the same articles, I'm surprised this editor has posted on my talk page. Re owner, perhaps some of the edit contributions to the article look like I'm the owner, but I'm not, there is no ownership - don't know why the editor bought this up, as the concern is this edit). 2. Rather than me going back to the article to undo those changes as I think we will end up hitting the WP:3RR. There is clear disagreement and I believe this editor has an issue understanding what my edit summary means. What I also don't understand is that the information about BT Tower in that section is already referenced and there are two citations at the end which confirm that information, so the cn tags are unnecessary (I don't even think this editor has bothered to click on those references to check) - BT Tower article itself also has some of this info. The other cn tag which may be correct was placed at this text which is at the beginning of the subsection: "BT remains one of the largest owners of telecommunications towers in the UK." - The reason a citation was not added for this is because this sentence is a snippet from British Telecom microwave network which is already linked via the main template.

Also the editor has removed "Some of its towers are:" text which has a few of BT's towers underneath with their own articles and added a new subsection "List of towers" with unreferenced section and incomplete list tags (note that a See also to the buildings category is there and a link to Telecommunications towers in the United Kingdom which has a list of BT Towers, again WP:SUMMARY which is the reason I had done it like this and makes sense).

I apologise for bringing this here, some of this is probably better discussed at the talk page, but per the reasonings above and I don't think we will come up to a decision, also again, the possibility of hitting 3RR. Maybe DRN? Also noting that this editor doesn't liked to be pinged. Whether it's me, that editor or both at fault, I would greatly appreciate help from an admin. I don't agree with this edit and it would be good if this can be resolved. Thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I've just dropped an ANI notice on their talk page. --Blackmane (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Oops, self reverted, I didn't notice that one was already there. I've added a heading for better visibility though. --Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I should respond.

1. There is a content dispute on BT Group. It has no place on ANI at the moment.
2. Steven (Editor) (talk · contribs) does have ownership issues with the BT Group article. And I'm not the only person to think so.[207][208] And it is not the only such article.
3. I don't understand why my name is on this other than we have disagreed strongly previously[209], and I have warned him I would report him here.[210] Have I behaved inappropriately? I don't think so. It's certainly not clear from the 'rant' above what Steven would like me to do except not edit articles that he wants to edit unencumbered by having to answer to others.

If anyone would like me to comment on the content dispute here just say.

Otherwise I will just allow this to wither on the vine. Fob.schools (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment I placed the WP:COPYVIO notice on BT Group AFTER this report was filed by Steven (Editor) so the comment by User:Fob.schools that this discussion has no place on ANI at the moment is invalid. Particularly since it would appear that the copy-violation was performed by User:Fob.schools in the first place. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest that an accusation like that needs to be backed up with diffs. To save you the bother of searching I'll just include them here and you can choose which ones:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=868835311&oldid=868717542
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=868625918&oldid=868620720
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=862284005&oldid=862270868
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=862110144&oldid=862103979
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=861818377&oldid=861784259
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=861741240&oldid=861644567
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BT_Group&type=revision&diff=861569414&oldid=861525913

If you check the history carefully enough you'll also find that a huge amount of the (often unnecessary and unencyclopaedic) copy added by young Steven is indeed copy/pasted from press releases and the like. I think an apology and strikethrough by Zackmann08 (talk · contribs) may be necessary. Fob.schools (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The text that is showing in the copyvios report was not added by me. What's "unnecessary and unencyclopaedic"? How about comprehending what I put above about your edits. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:POINTy disruption and harassment

Following a dispute at Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision, Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) has started to WP:HOUND me, following me to Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic/GA2, casting aspersions here, which I hatted as off-topic trolling. He unhatted it here, casting further aspersions. Can someone take a look at his behavior here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsecboy (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You hatting someone’s comments and dismissing them as “trolling” because you don’t agree with them is worse than anything Dennis did here. And “casting aspersions” seems to be the new wiki buzzword, even though maybe 1 in 10 people I see using it use it accurately. Fish+Karate 00:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:CASTINGDISPERSIONS. EEng 00:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how Dennis's comments are relevant to the GAR or in any way made in good faith. He came specifically in an attempt to poison the well by attacking my motivation. As for "aspersions", it's been around since 2015, regardless of whatever the trend is here. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Parsecboy does raise a important point: why bother to follow someone across the article space to continuously make you point? We expect that on article talk pages on which relevant discussions are being made and on our own talk pages, but to have the problem bounce form one to the other does sound less like a wiki-disagreement and more like an personal attack. I advised both to focus on the matter at hand, but singling one out without the other when it takes two to tango suggests that either the debate was not looked into before an opinion was rendered or that there was one clearly right editor and one clearly wrong editor. Its not my place to judge, but I would caution against dismissing someone's comments because you don't agree them because that frequently does make things worse. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Seems like TomStar81 has already dealt with this at the GAR discussion; after this report, but before the comment I'm writing. While I'm not supporting Dennis's overall behavior (or yours), I don't think going to one GAR of an article specifically mentioned in your really long previous discussion counts as hounding. I'm not really interested in comparing the severity of your snarkiness and his snarkiness. I'd wait to see if Tom's good advice takes hold. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Floq, if you and I have a disagreement about something, you go do something else, and I then I follow you there for the sole purpose of attacking you, is that a productive thing for me to do? Dennis's or my snarkiness in a different debate is completely irrelevant to the question. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I have had an editor do that very thing to me. If it happens once (or, in my case, once every few months) I try to ignore it. If it becomes a pattern then I'll ask for help. As I specifically said above, I'm not condoning Dennis' comment. I'm saying there are extenuating factors - one, this article was specifically mentioned in the argument you two were having, so it's not the same as if he'd followed you to an unrelated topic. And two, you were both being snarkier than necessary, which tends to lead to a bad vibe spiral. Because of that, I'd want to see evidence of more pestering, after TomSstar's warning, before doing anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not looking to get anybody blocked - I would like somebody to make clear to Dennis that this sort of behavior is unnacceptable.

That said, this isn't exactly the only time he's had trouble with another editor - see for instance here. Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

While I'm not saying I endorse the use of the phrase "fuck off" on Wikipedia, that exchange makes me more inclined to view Dennis as a reasonable person than an unreasonable one.  Swarm  talk  22:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• While I don't doubt that Dennis followed you to that page, HOUNDING implies intent to harass, and I'm not seeing that. If you extensively argue for the removal of content from one article, and then hop over to a similar article that hosts the same content for a spontaneous GA review, and you don't even mention the fact that the article hosts content that you fundamentally object to out of principle, pointing that out isn't harassment, and it's not an attack, it's relevant context. And, it's not an aspersion, as a reasonable rationale for his comment was provided. If anything, in the interest of transparency, it's probably best that it be brought up, and I would think any reasonable person can understand how that might potentially look suspicious, even if you were acting in good faith (and yes, it's possible to have a COI in good faith). If your intentions were pure, then surely you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for performing that particular action on that particular page, and you could easily put to rest any concerns about COI with a simple good faith explanation. Aggressively hatting it as "trolling" and reporting the user are not only dubious actions in their own right, but it also just comes across as being overly-defensive. I understand being defensive is just human nature, and doesn't imply that you're in the wrong, but it doesn't help your cause. I know it must be frustrating to be called the hell out so brazenly by an editor who followed you from another dispute, and I understand how frustrating it can be when you're an administrator and someone's accusing you of petty violations as if you don't know better. But I don't see this as an actionable violation.  Swarm  talk  22:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problems by Srusso1998

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

---

• Srusso1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user appears to be repeatedly inserting the same copyrighted material into the same two articles, despite five warnings not to do so on their talk page over the last ten days (including this straightforward warning from an administrator yesterday). Each warning has been ignored by the user. In fact, the user's only edits have been to insert the copyright violations onto the same two articles. I don't think this user gets it and probably needs to be blocked until they give an assurance they won't commit further copyvios. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I should add that the copyvios can see been by looking at the recent history (last ten days) of gun laws in the United States by state and gun politics in the United States. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Every last one of his edits has now been revision deleted as a violation of the copyright policy. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you for the quick action! Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Unregistered editor adding goatse images to 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.

---

86.171.215.87 (talk · contribs) is adding an inappropriate image to many articles and editors reverting him or her are getting frustrated. Can someone please block this jerk and delete the image that he or she is using to vandalize articles? Thanks!

(If you have an aversion to pornography and other shocking anatomical images, don't look into this issue. Let someone who already knows what goatse is handle it.) ElKevbo (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked, vandalism mostly addressed, image speedy nominated on commons, BIL'd here. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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

(Non-administrator comment) Post close, it seem related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#IP posting "porn". Which also a UK ip and spamming goatse . Matthew hk (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian

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

---

Please will you take a look at what this editor is doing and also what Sebastian James is doing as there is evidence they are the same editor using sock puppets. The edit war AlexTheWhovian has started and the personal abuse is intolerable.27.131.36.174 (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of unfounded and unsupported accusations there. Careful of WP:BOOMERANG. -- Alex^TW 03:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, would you like to send a link for us to see? That would give us more information. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oshawott 12, see the contribution history of 27.131.36.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), the article history of Demons of the Punjab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and the discussion at User talk:Wtmitchell#Alex The Whovian - Dr Who Demons of the Punjab for the unfounded accusations of 3RR and SOCK. All the best, cheers. -- Alex^TW 03:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Summary: The editor initially added ratings content[211], I reworded it with an accidental typo[212] (84 instead of 48), got chewed out about it on my talk page[213], the editor reverted multiple times against multiple editors[214][215][216], before finally setting on the single line of missing content[217]. -- Alex^TW 03:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at the edits to the article "Demons of the Punjab" where you will see that I added correct, sourced, cited data. AlexTheWhovian undid that edit and inserted an incorrect, unsourced, uncited figure. They have subsequently stated that they simply made a 'typo'. When you undo edits, that's not a typo. That's an active decision. I reinstated my accurate edit. Sebastian James, who also exclusively edits the same pages as AlexTheWhovian, then undid it again. Between them, they have continually undone the edits I have made, despite the fact that my edits were accurate and accurately sourced, unlike the edits made by AlexTheWhovian who inserted incorrect, unsupported data. AlexTheWhovian then started making threats on my talk page. Twice threatening me with being blocked. Despite starting and escalating an edit war, AlexTheWhovian accuses me of being the instigator. They then accused me of making an edit that they suggest I should have "made in the first place". I did make that edit in the first place. AlexTheWhovian and Sebastian James undid it. Three times each. The abuse is intolerable. I apprecaited AlexTheWhovian believes they are the guardian of all Dr Who knowledge, but the fact remains that they undid a correct edit simply to insert incorrect data and as such, begun an edit war to demonstrate their superiority. AlexTheWhovian accuses me of incorrect editing and only being part of wikipedia to make trouble. I'm sure if you look at my correct and correctly supported edits compared to the "typos" made by AlexTheWhovian, you will wish to take action.27.131.36.174 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This piece of text is contradicting. Many parts of it just tell what happened, and most of it isn't even true. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I never undid the initial edit. I edited it to a more encyclopedic tone and to match previous episode articles. There's no basis for saying I undid it. The editor then kept reverting until it turned out we only missed a single line. And their massive hangup over my accidental typo. There is also no basis at all for the serious accusation of sockpuppetry. -- Alex^TW 03:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, I don't see any personal abuse from warnings. There is no major edit war that we should be concerned of to have an Ani about. Requesting close. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 11:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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

IP refspam

This IP editor has been adding links to his own primary research papers to a large number of articles over a long period of time (since at least October 2016 March 2012, but there may be more IPs I haven't come across). Talk page messages and warnings have not worked. He has been blocked twice. I don't know what else to do short of calling him on the phone and telling him to stop.

• 85.248.18.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 147.251.89.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 147.251.157.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 78.102.206.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 176.74.129.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.221.212.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 195.168.25.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 147.251.89.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 213.220.227.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 98.155.90.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 147.251.157.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.113.98.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.148.17.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Please make it stop. Natureium (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems tricky - what with inserting blank PMIDs there's not even a keyword (e.g. author name) to filter...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

No one has any ideas? Natureium (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There's no simple solution. But we can take some measures. We can find all articles containing e.g. pmid=30030508 with an insource search on insource:"pmid 30030508". If we suspect that the spammer is e.g. M Mraz, we can search on insource:"last Mraz". Less common surnames give results small enough to be inspected. We can filter larger result sets on initial like this: insource:"last Doubek" insource:"first M". In addition we can find papers on PubMed by author. These are the 178 papers on PubMed authored by M Mraz: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Mraz%20M%5BAuthor%5D which would allow us to accumulate a complete set of pmids that might be viewed as "suspicious". If the size of the problem seems too large to tackle manually, it is possible that a bot request might help collect and collate target articles that need to be checked. Stopping the spammer from adding text looks like it would need a complex edit filter and that's unlikely to get approved for what may be seen as a relatively small problem. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The author seems to be called Marek Mraz. Some of his papers now have entries in Wikidata. For example this one. Their university affiliation points to the Czech Republic. I searched for an editor named 'Mraz' on cz.wikipedia.org but didn't find any. For a stopgap fix we could semiprotect about 80 medical articles for a year. Or, we could let User:Natureium continue to work the old-fashioned way to remove these IP edits with whatever method they are using now. Which might be tedious. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I figured out the author’s name after the first time I found him on a spree, but I didn’t know if giving it would be considered outing. I think I’ve removed all the papers at this point. Because he only puts the PMID, his name doesn’t go in until someone expands the ref. Honestly, he’s the only person I can recall seeing that only lists the PMID, so it might work to disallow that feature. I figured by now he would give up after seeing that his edits are reverted every time. He is the corresponding author on some of those papers, so even though he clearly doesn’t read his talk page, he could be contacted by email or phone. Natureium (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• I will add this to my list to periodically check. It may be worth adding the author name to an edit filter? Guy (Help!) 09:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Add LAG3, PAK1, KIAA0825. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Which author did you search for those? I only went through and removed the Mraz papers. Natureium (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding 'calling him on the phone and telling him to stop': I am unsure if it is wise to contact the author off Wikipedia. Why not ask one of the oversighters if any other follow-up is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm definitely not going to call him myself because that would be very expensive and sounds incredibly awkward. Can you explain what that has to do with oversighters though? Should I call an oversighter on the phone and ask them? Natureium (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll continue this discussion on your user talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Natureium, RexxS, EdJohnston, and JzG: Can this thread be closed now? Softlavender (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No objection here. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Are we saying that the solution to this is to just keep removing them every time he spams them? Natureium (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, he added more just today. 91.148.17.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Sigh. Natureium (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It might be possible for Cluebot to detect these additions and automatically revert them. That would be less 'expensive' (in computing terms) than an AbuseFilter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The edits are idiosyncratic so amenable to a filter. The PMID changes but the format is largely stable. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Insults and naming calling by User:Panosgatto

This user is a typical vandal. I reverted his vandalism a number of times and reported him to your respected page after the last warning on his talk page. Take a look here please: [218], [219], [220], [221]. It's a clear removal of sourced content without reason, deletion of information and facts without consensus. He deleted sources and content without any justification whatsoever. He removed parts of the introduction without any reason. This user is an avid fan of a rival club to this particular article's club and he removes sourced facts in the introduction just because he doesn't like them. It's a typical case of vandalism, removal of content and reliable sources without justification (and without any consensus).

Now he started insulting and attacking me on my talk page as you can see here: [222]. I won't answer to his unacceptable insults so I choose to defer to the administrators. Thank you for your attention. Lynxavier (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

looks more like a content dispute to me. I think however that the implication of the use Football hooligan might warrant a mild rebuke.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: it's not a content dispute. I'll try to explain what happens here. This user is a fan of Panathinaikos B.C., a rival team to Olympiacos B.C. (the article in question). His objective is to "belittle" Olympiacos by removing sourced content because he doesn't like it (and without any consensus whatsoever of course). At the same time he tries to "praise" or "magnify" the team he supports by adding content which is inappropriate and outside of any encyclopedic interest in his favorite team's article. Another user tried to revert his edits and he keeps reverting them back. These are his vandalisms at Olympiacos B.C.: [223], [224], [225], [226] These are his disruptive edits at Panathinaikos B.C.: [227], [228]. Another user, editor Seraphim System reverted his disruptive edits but he keeps on and on. Moreover he plagiarized my explanation to "justify" his disrupting editing on the page, twice and thrice reverting back Seraphim System's reverts: [229], [230], [231]. Lynxavier (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Lynxavier, what is your proposed solution? A WP:TOPICBAN from Olympiacos B.C.? -- Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • • Softlavender Thank you for your answer Softlavender. A WP:TOPICBAN from both Olympiacos B.C. and Panathinaikos B.C. is the right course of action in my opinion. I don't think that you should give him a ban for his insults and his demeanor, it would be nicer if somebody explained him what exactly wikipedia is and what it is that we're supposed to do here. Lynxavier (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Softlavender The matter is beyond ridiculous. He reverts back Seraphim System's interventions thrice and nothing is being done: [232], [233], [234], [235]. I tried to revert his disruptive, POV editing after Seraphim System but he keeps reverting back to his POV version: [236], [237]. He plagiarizes my justification text and uses it as his own, and now he keeps coming back: [238]. Admins are you going to do something or not? Lynxavier (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the other issues, I have blocked User:Panosgatto for two weeks for edit-warring. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

IPs starting edit wars?

The following discussion is closed. 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 suspect that the two IPs were phone tower IPs, and the main one is a computer IP, since I reverted and the two other IPs promptly started edit waring with me:

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

Main account:

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

They are all Ukraine IPs. They have been repeatedly reverting my edits on Gmail. According to WP:SOCK, they shouldn't be doing this, so a block, maybe? Most of the main acc's edits were category adding, and most of them were wrong. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 06:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 06:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oshawott 12: Perhaps use WP:AN/3RR and/or WP:SPI? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 11:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Using a dynamic IP address is not sock puppetry. This is clearly edit warring, though. Special:Contributions/46.211.0.0/16 was previously blocked 72 hours, so I'll up to a week. I'll also block 178.92.51.5 for the same period – it's obviously the same person and is perpetuating the same edit wars. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 13:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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

TheUltamateBoss3900

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

---

TheUltamateBoss3900 (talk · contribs) I really don't want to do this, but I'm bringing up TheUltamateBoss3900 (previously TheBigBoss3900) because I think there are some fundamental issues going on with the user's understanding of how Wikipedia operates, and they don't seem to want to understand. This user has indicated that they are young and that English is not their first language, but also has not responded to attempts to offer a better understanding of policy and common practices around here (most recent attempt here).

Onto the actual concerning behavior:

• First and foremost, the repeated recreation of articles deleted or redirected as part of a deletion discussion. Two main pages here:
  • Auska's Undefeated Streak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), deleted via AfD and subsequently re-created by TUB3900 twice, the second time with an edit summary of "STOP FUCKING DELETING THIS FUCKING PAGE". The page was subsequently salted.
  • WWE SmackDown 1000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), redirected after AfD as well, reinstated twice by TUB3900 against consensus.
• A fundamental misunderstanding of what Draft: and the AfC process is for, as evidenced by the creation of Draft:TheUltamateBoss3900's Life

TUB is obviously passionate about the subject matter they write about, but doesn't seem to be interested in actually communicating about things on the project. They've been warned multiple times about their behavior (about page recreation, whole section here on the draft) as well as given advice on other workings of Wikipedia such as page protection but still don't take these things into account. Looking for some community input here since me and others reaching out doesn't seem to be working. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling... check. Young editor... check. In need of a block... check. I'd be fine with a topic ban from wrestling as well. Also an aside, that's not how you spell 'ultimate'. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking more closely at their draft that mentions a wife and kids, I'm starting to think that they might not actually be younger, but I could swear I saw them mention being on winter break at one point. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

They are probably referring to one of their vacations, see their userpage. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I was just annoyed about the page I am on holiday and I am editing while on holiday I just don't want to be blocked I really don't Your Friend TUB3900 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

We still have an open MfD on their draft about themselves Legacypac (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Not anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage people from editing Wikipedia but this user clearly doesn't have the maturity, regardless of how old they are, to edit. And the sad thing is, I'm starting to wonder if this is a sock. Seeing "I want to be an admin" reminds me of someone... --Tarage (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

...Now I'm sure of it. User:TheBigBoss3900's first edit was to create a page saying "I want to be an admin as soon as I hit 100 edits. I'm starting an SPI right now. --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. For a fact, I am also a young editor, but I also feel like he isn't mature enough, based on us former userboxes and his description on his userpage. We can't do anything about it, since maturity isn't a policy on Wikipedia, but if he does do somethig wrong or actually IS a sockpuppet, then we can catch him in the act. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 23:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he is. The signs are there. --Tarage (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand that your not calling me a child. and a sockpuppet the "I want to be an admin" thing I said that on my then/now retired account User:TheBigBoss3900 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUltamateBoss3900 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's still your account. You don't get to pretend it never existed. You did not get a fresh start. --Tarage (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand that I couldn't get to log in to that account see my user pagefor example — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUltamateBoss3900 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is everything 'I understand that'? Also, there will be no way you could be an admin if you can't even sign your own comments. Even IP editors can do that. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 23:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I Will be an admin and stop judging me just because I said "I understand that" TUB3900 (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no "I will". You are not certain to achieve administrator status, and that applies to all users. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Have I mentioned that this is quacking as loudly as possible? Because this is quacking as loudly as possible... --Tarage (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying this is quacking as loudly as possible. EEng 00:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I see no funny picture of a duck. Are you TRYING to get banned?!?!?!?1/1/1/11/1oneslashone --Tarage (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Obvious sock

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

---

I posted this to AIV, but I think it's better suited here. Terimaakitou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is an obvious sock of someone and a vandalism-only account. The account was created Nov 19, but immediately filled its own userpage with fake userboxes claiming to have over 100,000 edits and various barnstars and other fake stuff. Then posted curse words/personal attacks in Urdu to [239] and [240]. "Mader Chod" is an invitation to engage in intercourse with one's own mother... I don't need to go into what the rest says. Should be blocked and his sandboxes deleted. WOPR (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

From looking at RPhese's talk page, the above is a WP:DUCK for Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (talk · contribs). WOPR (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Continued disruptive editing by editor, sans edit summary

The following discussion is closed. 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 multiple warnings, Aquelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to edit, sans edit summary and continues to make changes without discussion, on several pages related to The Voice (franchise). User has been warned since June 2016 about this behaviour, and still has not corrected it. They provide the same edits daily, despite reverts and warnings. They were also warned by KatnissEverdeen (talk · contribs) about using edit summaries, and they've still refused to use them. They've refused to respond to any inquiry on their talk page, which suggests they are not here to edit cohesively within the community in a collaborative effort. This could be considered borderline vandalism, but at this point, we could also gander that it is still highly disruptive. livelikemusic talk! 13:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support block until communication. It IS required. --Tarage (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Yep, come across editors like this before who offer NOTHING in the way of explaining their actions. Block them, and if they're prepared to start talking, then take it from there. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef until they promise to communicate. Looks like a case of WP:RADAR and WP:IDHT. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Mystery mobile 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.

---

This isn't really an incident report. I just couldn't think of anywhere else to post this. But, has anyone else noticed, in these last roughly 2 or so weeks (maybe more) we've had many edits & posts across Wikipedia by a 260xxxxxx mobile editor? GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

What's a 260xxxxxx mobile editor? ∯WBG^converse 05:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

His mobile numbers are a variation of 260x.xxxxx.xxx. Here's an example: User:2605:6000:7c4c:a600:e914:5667:ffbf:c8c5 GoodDay (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a logged out user, editing from an IPv6 address. Have these users been doing any vandalism or disruptive editing (other than the one I can see from the user you linked)? – numbermaniac 06:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

For the most part, no. My 13+ years on Wikipedia, makes me sense it might be an ban evading editor. Perhaps I'm just paranoid. GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It could be one person who gets a new dynamic IPv6 address every time they reboot their modem - if the previous addresses were banned it might be intentional, but if not then it's just one person using the internet. Alternatively it could be different people using the same internet service provider, using one pool of similar IPv6 addresses for all of its users. The one that you linked above has only one edit but it could be considered 'disruptive editing' - though it's not enough to be banned on its own. – numbermaniac 07:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

See discussion below, which is about those 260x.xxx.xxx mobile editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Accounts still being hacked

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

---

Look at the page history of Donald Trump: [241]. It is being hit by hacked accounts. We already have had several noticeboard discussions of compromised accounts. Even if you are not an admin, I recommend changing your password now. funplussmart (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Would not a major alert on the front page be more use?

ALERT ALERT HACKING ATTACK! all editors are advised to change their passwords immediately.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I suspect this could be a hacking group like OurMine again. funplussmart (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Munenejohn

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

---

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

Munenejohn (talk) has recently been asked multiple times ([242], [243], [244]) on their talkpage to refrain from removing comments and maintenance templates from Draft:Africa Policy Institute (which they created), and yet they have declined to respond to multiple editors. They were also recently asked to disclose if they have a connection to the subject (off-wiki evidence strongly implies they do) at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Edits_by_User:Munenejohn, but as before they have persisted [245] in removing COI tags and review comments from the draft in question without making any sort of response. Requesting an admin take a look at the situation.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Indef and nuke. ∯WBG^converse 06:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

COI? Check. No communication? Check. Indef, nuke, and salt. --Tarage (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:JPL549

New editor User:JPL549 has been leaving a lot of short, almost meaningless, comments on AfDs. I've seen this pattern before. I'm pretty sure I was involved in a WP:SPI about another user with this same pattern of editing, but I can't remember the details. Anybody recognize this pattern of behavior? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is not a new user. Maybe they are an experienced IP that decided to sign up, but my gut says otherwise. This needs a look from someone with access to a magic 8 ball. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Confirmed to KNTTR. RKTMan and WarahLu look to probably be the same person. Given that they all use similar edit summaries, I'm going to assume they're all socks of WarahLu, who's tagged as a sock of Wikibaji. I'll block them all in a minute. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Bias Against Cell Phone Users

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

---

I’ve been unable to edit wikipedia because I use a cell phone and also because of over-zealous wikipedia admins who jump to conclusions like “this person is a vandal” and “this person is disruptive.” It’s disgusting. Let me walk you through some things:

1. I put a db-band tag on five articles. Two of them were deleted, correctly, immediately. The other three, however, were flagged as me being a vandal. I left appropriate comments on every edit, it should have been clear that vandalism wasn’t the intent.
2. I asked the admin why I was blocked. My edit reverted without explanation.
3. I reported these problems on this page. Instead of anyone looking at the edits to see that they weren’t vandalism, instead I was bombarded with “you are evading a block!” comments. I was not. I didn’t even know my IP was blocked or that it changed. I’m just using a phone, and I’m not in control of my IP. Here’s the entire thread.
4. I appealed my block and was declined, with a comment “keep this up and you’ll have your block extended, citing WP:POINT. Keep WHAT up? I tagged crappy articles for deletion. I was right (even if it’s AfD and not speedy, the point is that the articles were not worthy of inclusion). I’m not a vandal. What is wrong with wikipedia admins that you don’t act in good faith? Isn’t that one of the primary editing guidelines?
5. As you can see, there were finally some reasonable editors -- User:Nil_Einne and User:Swarm -- who said, “hey, maybe this person was just trying to edit!” And I was. Swarm’s comment is 100% spot-on, although Nil_Einne clearly misses the mark calling me someone who is evading a block. I am not in control of my IP address.
6. In the meantime, after a week or so of those bad articles remaining on wikipedia, I went through AfD for the articles I previously tried to speedy-delete, and they were in fact all deleted, except one that is pending (but shouldn’t be -- a musician with 51 followers isn’t notable) and I didn’t AfD the album I nominated because I didn’t realize it had made the Billboard chart. (Still not sure that’s enough because the album’s page is included to promote and for no other reason.)

In the meantime, the IP address at my house appears to have changed again. I’m now apparently permanently stuck behind an IP address that falls into a range banned via Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Dog_and_rapper_vandal, whatever that is. I put a note on that talk page to say “I don’t think this block affects the correct range any more. I’m in Maryland.” Of course, my edit was deleted with a tag to “do not feed the trolls.”

So we have two issues here that I’d like to see addressed:

1. Are there any admins on WP who are willing to admit error? Will someone say, “you know, the previous behavior toward you was not assuming good faith, and those blocks weren’t necessary”? Is that possible? It seems only User:Nil_Einne and User:Swarm acted in good faith. Swarm in particular understands the situation 100%. Why could no other admin see what was happening? Why wasn’t the initial reaction “these should go through AfD rather than speedy”? Why was the reaction “you are vandalizing the site!”? It’s interesting to me that I was trying to make the site better by deleting bad articles, and you were calling me a vandal. Amazing.
2. I’m stuck behind a range of IPs that were blocked from a vandalizing process from three years ago. Those vandalism edits have nothing to do with me. I’m completely at the mercy of cell phone providers, and because of that, I’ve fallen behind some terrible editor who ruined the IP for everyone. I mean, previously you were telling me that I’m evading blocks when my IP changed by a couple digits. Now it’s some weird string of letters and numbers -- if I knew how to evade blocks, why would I choose to get stuck behind a range of blocked IPs? As it is, I’m posting this edit from a family member’s house because I have no other way to edit wikipedia.

Where do we go from here? Note that I will probably not be able to respond to any comments on this thread because I’ll be home where my IP is blocked. But these things need to be brought to your attention. Clearly the initial block of my non-vandalism edits were uncalled for. Can only two editors recognize this? Will anyone be disciplined? Anyone bother to mention to User:Bbb23 how none of the edits were vandalism?Surely there must be more admins that recognize I placed deletion tags in good faith. Or will this post get attacked like my previous one?

But what about the cell phone bias? Probably need to add that to your WP:BIAS list. Clearly I’ve been discriminated against: my initial edits weren’t vandalism, but they were from an IP and not an account. BLOCKED! And then I asked about the block and apparently my IP changed so you say EVADED! All of this for an editor who was simply trying to add some maintenance tags. Now I’m being discriminated because my cell phone IP happens to fall behind ranges of addresses that did bad things years ago. I have no way in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CA00:159:2BB9:62C4:274A:9A8B:CCFC (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It might help your case to show is the edits in question.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That's impossible. The articles were deleted. All I did was put db-band tags with appropriate edit comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CA00:120:4AC3:62C4:274A:9A8B:CCFC (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

What all of them, even the ones that you were accused of vandalism on?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe they are referring to this past discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• You may not be in control of your IP but you could be in control of your account... Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The IP talk pages linked above are all Sprint IPs - there are at least three LTAs operating on Sprint. It's inevitable that cell phone IPs will get caught up in stuff; I won't even edit from mine. Recently it was under a rangeblock for apparent abuse from GeraldFord1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who hasn't even edited since 2010. Home Lander (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Being logged in to an account is no protection from over-zealous blocks to mobile ranges. I had the very unpleasant experience recently of being locked out of my account with no way of challenging it due to a block affecting my mobile provider. DuncanHill (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

See my above discussion, where I've mentioned these growing number of 260x.xxxx.xxx mobile phone editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

To the IP are you also 173.120.181.200?Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Esanchez7587

The following discussion is closed. 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 this account has been compromised; see recent logs. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The account has already been locked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Or it was locked just a second ago, but I don't see it anymore. Account definitely seems compromised though. funplussmart (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, the system works [246]...quite ironic this happening at the moment. ——SerialNumber54129 17:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It's still locked; I put in a WP:BN request for de-sysop. Home Lander (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the irony; since the last emergency desysop has result in a mahoosive arbcom case, everyone will be doing this by the numbers. And that means...slowly  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Good thing we allow admins to hold on to the bit for old time sake despite having no use for it whatsoever! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC

AbsoXXXXXlutely :D ——SerialNumber54129 17:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Also Pro1122, an account with zero edits created today is suspicious, since Esanchez7587 assigned them quite some user rights. It probably should be blocked as a block evasion, but since there is a chance that this is just a randomly chosen account, I am hesitant.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Those rights have been removed too. ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Zzuuzz who requested CU notification regarding recent compromised accounts. Home Lander (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Errm yes this is CU-confirmed to the other compromises. Anyone wanting information on that can contact me. We are taking a look at Pro1122. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

What other accounts have been hacked recently? funplussmart (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

We have Asenine up this page, not yet archived.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a partial list on my talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

For somebody who seems to know Wikipedia more than just in passing, that could have been a lot worse. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

For sure. Let's all just remember, though, beans, beans beans. Home Lander (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone asked a sysadmin to run a password cracker on the recently compromised accounts, or at least find out how many guesses it took for the vandal took to get in? If these accounts dont't have weak passwords, we might have a more serious concern here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I seem to remember asking this question in the past, and the answer is you can't, but I can't remember why. I think Beeblebrox knows. I think all admins should have two factor authentication turned on ASAP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, the vandal could have changed the passwords, not sure if it would do any good. Home Lander (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: I'd imagine the old password hashes are backed up somewhere. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• FYI, per WP:LEVEL1 approval from ArbCom, this account has been desysoped. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Years of Establishments

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

---

Years of Establishments (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is busy mass-reverting my edits, and has not responded to two requests on their talk to stop and discuss.[247][248]

Please can someone apply some restraint? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Bbb23. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Indef User:Andyccr1 still gaming the system

The following discussion is closed. 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 any admin please remove the right of talk page access? All of the user's contributions were vandalism.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Longhair\^talk 12:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Revoke TPA

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

---

Can anybody revoke the talk page access of Stop the trade war - who is vandalizing his talk page after being blocked by Widr . Kpgjhpjm 12:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Longhair--Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Idiot editor doesn't do proper research before filing ANI report

The following discussion is closed. 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:MB has made at least 1,300 edits in the last 2 days removing ethnicities from article infoboxes. Is there a consensus somewhere to do this? If so, why wasn't the "ethnicity" field simply removed from the infobox?

I've asked MB to stop, but if they don't, and these are edits made with no consensus, then I think a block is in order until they explain what they are doing, and a mass rollback of their edits should be made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, withdrawn for the obvious reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary content removal

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

---

Bbb23 and Bradv removed comments (diff, diff, diff), however as per WP:Dealing_with_sock_puppets#Striking it should be striked. Their arguments are valid, so it seems the editors don't want the readers to know other opinions. 49.195.128.254 (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Who are you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BDMKK. Bradv 01:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Be sure to close/remove sections added by the editor. Do not encourage this type of behavior. What upsets them most is being ignored. --Tarage (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Cameek33 at Reverse racism

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

---

Cameek33 (talk · contribs) is making a hash of Reverse racism with edits like this [249], and by introducing and restoring spelling errors [250] [251] with edit summaries like "fixed vandalism of another user." They've also been screwing up named references because they don't understand what they're doing. The user is unresponsive on their talkpage, and appears to have competency issues. Since I've done some reverting I'd rather not take admin action. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

They've started to respond, but there appears to be a competency issue - they'd like to be the sole editor of the article, and I'm apparently a vandal. Maybe someone more patient can have a word? Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Acroterion, I repaired the obvious "United Stated" typo; definitely a competency issue there if they don't start being more careful. Home Lander (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It goes quite a bit beyond that instance, and I'm stepping back since it's making me cranky. Acroterion (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Acroterion, yeah I can see that. They did "thank" me for fixing the typo; that's hopefully a good sign. Definitely a clear misunderstanding of vandalism there. Home Lander (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

With edits like those as well as this series of edits at BAMN, Cameek33 appears to be here only to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Woodroar (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me as if he can't spell, nor know Wikipedia policies. P.S: We can lock it for him, but do make it EXTENDED CONFIRMED. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

What? I can't hear you over your sig. Bradv 05:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have given this editor an indefinite block. The edits to Reverse racism were atrocious and those at BAMN included the deliberate introduction of false information and lying in edit summaries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Before they were blocked they said they'd be socking so it's worth keeping an eye out for that. Btw, I wonder if some of their word salad issues is because they use autocomplete/autocorrect indiscriminately, since "editing" became "redditing" in the post I linked. -bonadea contributions talk 08:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Not quite sure how that could produce "whichalthough scholarsa argueprivilege constitutenot anexclusively essentialheld componentby of racismWhites." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I've worked a lot on the Reverse racism article. Edits such as these [252][253] by the user in question, besides the mangled spelling/syntax and other problems mentioned, are simple soapboxing and/or propagandizing. Thanks to the above admins for looking into the problem. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone - I approached this editor as a good-faith contributor who was misguided. By the time it became apparent that it was a hopeless case I didn't feel comfortable with placing a block, and I didn't want to do it out of sheer grumpiness. Acroterion (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User Naziloos

The following discussion is closed. 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, i reverted this user for some unhelpful changes. Then they made this edit on my talk page. Sounds like an obvious case of WP:NOTHERE troll to me. Maybe an admin can take a look at this. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: please see WP:VIOLENCE. Treat all claims seriously. Many threats are empty, but Wikipedians do not have the training to make such evaluations.. This should be reported immediately. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: FYI I pinged an admin in the IRC chat and the user has been blocked. I'm going to close this discussion out unless you want it kept open? In the future though, remember to take all threats seriously. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I've indef'd as after that edit with the non-existent history they have, a discussion needs to be had before they can edit. Any admin is free to change the block or remove it without consulting me further if they are convinced disruption won't be an issue going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

As an FYI the whole "Kabab" thing is a reference to the "Remove Kabab" meme, which means they are 100% trolling. Add it to your lexicons. --Tarage (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Redacted edit summary?

The following discussion is closed. 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 this edit be redacted? [254] It contains slurs based on national origin. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Jayron32 17:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Beyond My Ken. Again.

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

---

• Gavin McInnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Addition of unsourced contentious material to a BLP: [255]
• My attempts to discuss, which were ignored by BMK: Talk:Gavin McInnes#White nationalist, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gavin McInnes

But that's not really why I'm here. I'm here to report, as it says at the top of this page, "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." The last time I brought BMK here, just a few days ago, I got what I considered a very odd response. In spite of clear, unambiguous evidence of a violation of the edit warring policy, and the fact that this had been done intentionally and repeatedly, nothing was done. No block, no sanctions, no talk page notification, not even a "please don't do this again."

So I looked in to the archives and was appalled at what I found. This has been going on for years. There is a partial summary at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive312#User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Alansohn (Result: No action), courtesy of Alansohn.

There is a weird sort of Old Boys' Network vibe going on here. Ah, good old BMK is at it again. Well, boys will be boys. Nothing we can do about that, is there? Maybe give him his annual slap on the wrist? No, he's already had one this year, we'll just close this thread, then question the motives of the editor who reported it.

No doubt many of you excuse this behavior because of the thousands of good edits BMK has made. No question, he has done far more good for Wikipedia than I ever will. But there is also no question he has done more harm than I ever will. Imagine a new editor encountering BMK for the first time in a content dispute. That editor will probably never be back. Experienced editors are no doubt affected too. I know that in the future I will immediately de-watch and walk away any time I see BMK's name in the edit history of an article I am working on.

And although a single incident does not constitute stalking, is it at all suspicious that BMK popped up at this article, which I've been editing for weeks, just days after I brought him to ANI?

I have no doubt this thread will simply be closed with no action, as so many have been in the past. But before you close it, ask yourself, why are you protecting this guy? He doesn't get it, and he is incapable of changing his behavior. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you stop with this bullshit? Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

To clarify so I don't get another block, no, you are incorrect, this is not unsourced, not unsupported, and not contentious. Frankly I find you contentious for bringing this here. I very much would love to see a boomerang, but really I just want you to stop wasting our time with this bullshit. --Tarage (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You know what? Fuck it. Support ban from Kendall-K1 from reporting BMK for a year. If you have a problem with him, find someone else to do it. --Tarage (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have undone the close, because there's a behavioral problem, all right, just not the one Kendall-K1 thinks there is. --Calton | Talk 05:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have seen the links by Kendall-K1 above, and it ain't BMK that's the problem there. --Calton | Talk 05:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a run-of-the-mill content question to me, which is being worked out appropriately on the talk page. I don't see any evidence of improper behaviour by either party on the article, but we may need to address the personal attacks here at ANI. For that reason, I agree the close was premature. Bradv 06:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

If someone wants to make a proposal re Kendall-K1 go ahead. I closed it as a favor to them as a boomerang was a possibility. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I literally did. Ban him from reporting BMK for a year. If he feels like BMK has done something reportable, ask someone else to do it. Problem solved. --Tarage (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

It wasn't unconstructive. We're going to be back here in a month. --Tarage (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Several editors at BLPN (and elsewhere) have made egregious BLP violations. They may need to be blocked or banned from BLPs. wumbolo ^^^ 13:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:Casting aspersions, diffs, please, or withdraw that statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Main page image vandalism.

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

---

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

---

Obscene image on top of main page. Isn't it about time you found a way to prevent vandals doing this? 86.133.149.178 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

We just had an admin account get compromised. funplussmart (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Admins, please remove the picture of a naked man's prolapsed colon from the Main Page. The associated Twitter link should also be removed. Even though an IP user brought this to your attention above, I was hoping that it would be more noticeable coming from a Registered Editor. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Try clearing your cache. I don't see that image when I look at the main page. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 19:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

And the offending edits have been revdel'd as well. --Masem (t) 19:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I found the offending image on Commons and tagged it for speedy deletion, although I keep seeing it being uploaded under different names. funplussmart (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Since it's not mentioned yet, the admin account is globally locked at this time. -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

(Non-administrator comment) post close comment. It seem an ongoing issue . It was reported as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#Unregistered editor adding goatse images to articles just a few day back, as well as attacking the first page and reported as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#IP posting "porn". Matthew hk (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

For main page, the vandal needs to compromize admin accounts. For vandalism in usual articles, we have here a number of commons admins, including me, pls ping for a swift action on Commons. If I am around (not sleeping), I will immediately react.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it might be useful to have a list of regular en.wp editors who are also Commons admins, if such a list does not yet exist.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: see Category:Wikimedia Commons administrators for self-declared ones. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Tnx. I see that some of them do not have a bit anymore, but some do.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I brought the matter up on the AN at Commons [256]. funplussmart (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:CIVIL issue

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

---

[257]. Is it me or this kind of behaviour is on the rise?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's been around for some time  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 14:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it’s you. Best Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 15:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Reporting Rockallnight5

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

---

• Rockallnight5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is this editor using multiple accounts in articles like Birds in the Trap Sing McKnight, Kiss Land and Passion, Pain & Demon Slayin'. I have removed the recording dates off the articles because the sources didn't explicitly said these albums was recorded between these years [258] [259]. But this editor is being very disruptive by using multiple IP addresses, such as in Birds in the Trap Sing McKnight [260] [261] [262] [263]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. They could probably be blocked fairly uncontroversialLY, if they are disruptive enough. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: I try my best of not get in a edit war with this editor in these articles but the editor keep reverting my edits by using different IP address, and the sources added by the editor didn't explicitly stated that these albums was recorded in the years 2012–2013, 2015–2016 and March – August 2016, respectively. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: FYI, I was referring to Rockallnight5 above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDragonFire300 (talk • contribs)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: I would file an SPI with Rockallnight5 as the master and the IPs as socks. I can't promise traction on the report because IPs often attract less attention than named accounts, but given the level of obvious disruption, I would nonetheless open up a new case.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I started the case page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rockallnight5 to see where this may go. Binksternet (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 72h, if they continue the next block will likely be of infinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter. TheAmazingPeanuts dropped this on my talk page last night as I was heading out the door for the family Turkey Day dinner and I wasn't able to deal with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

DBigXray

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

---

• An IP added BLP violation on Jaggi Vasudev, which was restored by DBigXray using a misleading summary for his edit. DBX then added much more content to provide a negative point of view against the subject.
• Edits of DBX were reverted as BLP violation and lack of relevance, which DBX quickly restored, and restored again by providing misleading summary. The discussion was still running on talk page. Other editors removed nearly all of the content which was added by DBX and the page was protected by Amakuru for 24 hours.
• Edits by DBX violated BLP and used poor quality sources. They also show indications of borderline trolling on main article which was figured out by an IP and admin Amakuru. DBX was unhappy with that and he begin to justify even these absurd edits where he tries to establish a statue as "illegal" without any reliable source or conviction. (talk page diff)
• Consensus has been so far against any of his edits. He threatened to have me blocked by claiming I am violating "three-revert rule" when I made no revert on Jaggi Vasudev.
• DBX is also trying to drive away admin Amakuru by wrongly accusing him of violating WP:INVOLVED. I believe that Amakuru has not even edited the article other than removing an absurd edit of DBX which was requested on talk page.[264] How he is involved?

DBigXray's modus operandi seems to be: (1) insert blatant POV content; (2) revert any edits of his edits by other editors; (3) stall conversation on the talk page by repeating himself and attacking the contributors; (4) justify his additions by wrongly claiming the article to be puffery; (5) accuse others to be biased.

After he saw that consensus has emerged against his edits, he started writing a long thesis defending his indefensible actions at the article talk. He is still asking that why anybody even reverted him for the first time,[265] which further confirms that he refuses to understand the concerns with his actions.

His edits and talk page messages not only on Jaggi Vasudev but other related pages like Adiyogi Shiva Statue, reflects his inability to edit in a neutral manner. He is editing the subject as per his negative feelings. It seems impossible for DBX to understand why his edits are not being accepted, yet he he wants to continue fighting for them. Maybe it could be his jumbled English doesn't help him; sometimes it's hard to understand what he is telling. Either that or maybe he feels that he has to repeat himself because we can't understand his comments. Qualitist (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray (talk · contribs) also put an editorial cartoon depicting the Saudi crown prince dismembering Jamal Khashoggi on the article about the killing. This editor doesn't seem to know the difference between editorializing and editing. Jonathunder (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Wooooooooow. That's a good enough reason to block right there. --Tarage (talk)

• My above summary appears to be underestimating the actual scale of POV editing by DBX. His latest AfD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears of an undeniably notable subject [266][267] seems concerning and ridiculous. Qualitist (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Overall, he seems to be here to right great wrongs, and now he's added the editorial cartoon back as an IP address. Jonathunder (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

So, no I am NOT DBigXray. I am a French girl. Living in Germany ;-) --87.170.195.137 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• To know about the edits questioned above, please see my comments on these ongoing discussion threads at

• Talk:Jaggi Vasudev#Death of his wife
• Talk:Jaggi Vasudev#Mass reverts with misleading edit summary
• Talk:Jaggi Vasudev#Adiyogi Statue
• Talk:Adiyogi_Shiva_statue#Expanding the lead
• User_talk:Qualitist#November 2018
• Talk:Killing of Jamal Khashoggi#Cartoon of killing of Khashoggi--DBigXrayᗙ 03:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is looking more like a case of CIR. See the recent ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Black Kite and his aspersions (where he was reverting multiple admins) and continued failure to drop stick regardless of concerns raised above. Kraose (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Another recent example of DBigXray's severe disruption and harassment: On 11 November 2018 DBigXray opened a WP:RM at Emirati passport, and then proceeded to bludgeon and harass everyone who !voted against the move: Talk:Emirati passport#Requested move 11 November 2018. The harassment, quite astonishingly, extended to repeated bludgeoning on other editors' talkpages, at User talk:Alexandermcnabb#November 2018 and at User talk:Wikiemirati#Blatant misrepresentation of the Policy. DBigXray particularly seems to have it in for Wikiemirati, for reasons unknown to me; this is particularly odd since Wikiemirati has repeatedly shown themselves to be a mild-mannered, good-faith editor. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• DBigXray's Harassment

This user has called me a POV pusher [268], described my opinion on a talk page as "cocktail of BS" [269], called my good faith edits "stunts" [270] and accused me of conflict of interest [271] to push his pov in an article title change when I disagreed with him. He has attacked me directly for voicing my opinion on my talk page here User talk:Wikiemirati#Blatant misrepresentation of the Policy, called me "lying" and that I do not have 'English competence' [272]. In that discussion he threatened to open an ANI discussion simply for putting my thoughts on a talk page. He seems to take my words word-by-word for a policy when I talk about my opinion and accuses me of not adhering to the policy. When that was not enough he threatened to take me to ANI on any edit I do in the future here [273]. This is outright WP:harrassment. He even stated that if he comes across my edit in the future, he will take me to ANI, confessing to hounding. He previously followed my edit history to when I asked an admin if his edit constitute copyvio, and accused me of stonewalling here User talk:Diannaa/Archive 60#Input required. I really feel this user is following my contributions in wikipedia. He seems to abuse the discretionary sanctions alert as well as other alerts and has placed it on multiple talk pages (bascially everyone who disagrees with his edits on a page), such as these users talk pages User talk:InedibleHulk#Discretionary sanctions alert and User talk:WikiHannibal#Discretionary Sanctions Alert andUser talk:Alexandermcnabb#November 2018 as well as my own talk page. I highly view all these edits as disruptive and honestly, I do not have the time to debate every single one of them and that was the reason I did not open an ANI discussion on this user. However, I do not care for online disputes but I would not tolerate harassment or be threatened with "topic ban" or "administrative action" as he claimed he would seek against me and he should be dealt with. If his behavior continues, then someone else will be attacked eventually. I am highly busy in the real world as a physician and I do not have time to deal with some form of online harassment. I do not know why this user has continuously targeted me. I have urged this user to take a wikibreak [274] but he continues to have case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I urge administrators to take some form of action on this user to limit his disruptive editing, or at least keep him away from me. Thank you. Wikiemirati (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment--I'm getting quite-concerned that DBX is gradually getting close to the block-line. We have collided in the past but to be fair, he is a productive editor, who is here for the right purposes and does improve the project, heavily. And, that these linked diffs does not bear well, I will advise him to take a breath and step away from these volatile areas which are quite draining.this is not an endorsement of the complainant's own behavior/editorial tactics. ∯WBG^converse 18:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Qualitist clearly took offence with my WP:EW warning template on his talk and then in retaliation he brings a bunch of content dispute here on ANI. Classic cases of content disputes have been dredged up and hauled here to build up this thread. The diffs should be read in context of that particular page discussion and not out of context, those threads already have my responses.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You left a 3RR warning (not "WP:EW") when I made no revert. After this you made numerous attempts to prove that you were perfectly right with your indefensible actions per your recent notes on multiple talk pages. Like other editors have stated above, you are here only for righting great wrongs and believe that all other editors will give up only if you continue stalling discussions by repeating yourself and attacking others. Right above I had mentioned your nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears. In place of doing the right thing by withdrawing such a ridiculous nomination after reading my comment, you are badgering that AfD even when enough users disagree with your misrepresentation and poor understanding of policies. This behavior is pricesly the point for the report. Qualitist (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you calling my opinion "cocktail of BS" and describing me as "lying". This is not a content dispute and it should not be a tolerated behavior. It seems multiple other users have also endured your ill-mannered behavior, not just me. This name calling behavior must stop. Wikiemirati (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears closed as keep. Everyone except DBX agreed with the notability of the subject. Qualitist (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for Boomerang

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

• support Boomerang block for Qualitist for this shocking display of bad faith and WP :BATTLE. clearly he is pissed off due to my template for his edit war. The messages I have left everywhere are quite descriptive, still if anyone needs any further clarification from me, please feel free to ping. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd like clarification User talk:DBigXray for the inclusion of that comic and all the other things he pointed out. Please elaborate on each of them and don't just dismiss it as bad faith. --Tarage (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

There are talk page discussion threads for all my above edits including the comic. Please see my comments there. --DBigXrayᗙ 02:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

here are the links for the threads of the ongoing discussions. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• (non-admin) I don't see the 3RR issue from the above user, nor do I support the boomerang block, and I'm extremely concerned the very first post to this ANI by the user in question immediately suggests a boomerang. SportingFlyer talk 02:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• I consider the editorial cartoon showing Mohammed bin Salman to be a shocking and egregious BLP violation. Personally, I have great sympathy for Khashogghi's friends and family, and concern about the Saudi Royal family, but BLP policy requires that we be judicious and cautious regarding criminal allegations against people who have neither been arrested nor convicted. Please explain here (not on any talk page) why you believe that this cartoon belongs in this article, DBigXray. We can then examine your reasoning in detail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I am aware of the strictness of our BLP policies. Since 2 Oct when this incident was reported, Almost all the reliable sources have mentioned Mohammed Bin Salman as the person who is capable to launch such a scale of operation. Yesterday's News article on Wa Post mentioned this.

• CIA concludes Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination, The Washington Post  
• CIA concludes Saudi Crown Prince bin Salman ordered Khashoggi murder: Report

I understand that our article still cannot say that "MBS 'is' responsible for the killing of Khashoggi" because there is no conviction yet. The difference now is that the allegations reported in media have become even more stronger than before. Now based on these sources, our articles can mention : "WaPo reported that CIA has come to a conclusion that this killing was ordered by MBS". There is a difference between the two statements and I know and can appreciate the difference.

Now coming to the cartoon, this cartoon is an editorial caricature, that signifies, MBS dismembering what appears to be a journalists pen with Khashoggi's head. The caricature clearly implies (to me) that journalism is the victim in this case of killing of Khashoggi. Caricatures for War articles and political articles are common in most media sources, and many of our war and politics related articles do contain it. E.g. Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact#Negotiations, Consequences in Finland File:Caricature gillray plumpudding.jpg#File usage File:Lincoln and Johnsond.jpg#File usage

For what it is worth, French, German and Turkish Wikipedia are already using this cartoon c:File:Jamal Khashoggi.jpg on their article for the subject.

After I added the cartoon, it was reverted by an editor, Since I felt this needed a wider consensus accordingly I started a discussion thread with my points in support. I felt that the interpretation of this caricature is a subjective matter, so a wider consensus is needed and I left the matter for the talk page Consensus to decide whether the image can be added or not. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Indef block Qualitist - see Qualitist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and note the subject in the context of other recent discussions. This quacks very loudly indeed. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate? I for one have no idea what you are talking about. Qualitist has made 153 edits [275], mostly on Sarimah Ibrahim and Statue of Unity. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Registered October 18, immediately piled in to reverting edits (so very likely not a new editor) then picks up the cudgels at Jaggi Vesudev, see the report above on user:Regstuff. I don't know, I am a nasty suspicious bastard, but none of that looks kosher to me. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that Jaggi Vesudev connection too, but in fact the user has made only 3 edits to that article [276], and 3 edits to the talkpage [277]. I also agree the editor has more experience on Wikipedia than one month, but I don't see anything presented that would equate to a rationale for an indef; nor has anyone even presented diffs that would equate to a rationale for a short block. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Adiyogi Shiva statue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Softlavender to your edit count figures, please add another 6 edits by this user on Adiyogi Shiva statue which is on the same topic area (i.e. Isha Foundation by Jaggi). would be curious to see what news CU brings up here. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Adiyogi Shiva statue is a notable statue like Statue of Unity. Here you had made multiple problematic edits[278][279] which I removed without caring whose edits these were. I was making efforts to make this article look similar to Statue of Unity. I made total of 5 edits and then you restored your problematic content and I reverted you again. I thought you are a problematic editor and that's why I checked your other contributions found that you are disrupting other similar articles (like Jaggi Vasudev).

Maybe if you could avoid inclusion of problematic content on any of these articles then I wouldn't be editing any of them. I reported you because your contributions were bad not only in these articles but outside them. I don't have enough time to watch every edit that is made by you. Qualitist (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

JzG: I havent created account to edit this subject and I am not related to User:Regstuff. I made my first edit on that article in last 2 days which is weeks after I registered. Had I surfaced similar threats and deliberate policy violation on any other article, I would be still reporting. Qualitist (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Quantist is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopaedia. This is an opportunity to get it over with. ——SerialNumber54129 09:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On what basis do you make that statement? He's made 153 edits [280], mostly on Sarimah Ibrahim and Statue of Unity. He has never been blocked. Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • (non-admin) I'm also not seeing anything obviously block-worthy other than the fact the edits don't suggest someone who is using Wikipedia for the first time. I'm also not convinced based on reading through all of the above/talk pages/et cetera the initial boomerang suggestion was in good faith. I'm not suggesting we don't run a checkuser, but this seems at the moment to be a distraction from everything else that has been reported. SportingFlyer talk 12:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Of course it wasn't in good faith, it was a retaliatory diversionary tactic, just like DBigXray's recently going after Black Kite in this similar thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Black Kite and his aspersions. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Link to another specious report by him: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#Harassed and Wikihounded by a Battle Syndrome. Kraose (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, this is too much to ignore or get distracted away from. Even if someone is socking (including to post this ANI) that doesn't mean that the behavior reported isn't subject to scrutiny.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Sangdeboeuf engaging in disruptive editing

If you wish to complain about another user, don't log out to avoid scrutiny.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is currently a discussion at [[281]] regarding disruptive editing. The thread is [engaging in disruptive editing|User:Sangdeboeuf engaging in disruptive editing]. The discussion is about the topic Linda Sarsour. 76.115.64.80 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC) [I have attempted to use the subst:ANI-notice template to properly notify Sangdeboeuf and other affected editors regarding this entry. If I haven't used the template correctly, please modify it for me. Thanks.] For my own purposes, I was viewing the Linda Sarsour page on Wikipedia and was surprise by the lack of appropriate information regarding the controversy that surrounds her. While some information is there, it has been downplayed through inappropriate editing techniques, including lack of appropriate section headers. Indeed, the article reads as if it has been sanitized. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but the lack of information about these issues leads to a completely inaccurate description of Ms Sarsour and her position in American politics. Those looking to Wikipedia for an NPOV understanding of Ms Sarsour will not find it here. Curious as to why the article was so lacking in appropriate detail, I started looking through the talk page. It quickly became obvious that Sangdeboeuf was being a disruptive editor in pursuit of a particular POV. He (?) engages in numerous disruptive editing techniques which serve to dissuade other users from making appropriate edits and prevents consensus. These include: Repeated claims that well-sourced controversial material written about Ms Sarsour cannot be included due to BLP concerns. This includes Sangdeboeuf's frequent claims that editors may not present active public disputes or controversies which are well-covered and widely documented by reliable sources. Repeated claims that well-sourced controversial material is not actually well-sourced. Repeated claims that almost all controversial material cannot be included for numerous reasons including NPOV, Balance, Weight, Proportion, Recentism, NOTNEWS, and any other WP process citation he thinks he can use to defend his POV. Repeatedly disregards, downplays, or otherwise challenges other editor's explanations and reasoning. This seems to have prevented any consensus from forming and results in other editors being reluctant to make any edits at all. There is even an independent news article detailing Sangdeboeuf's questionable activities on the Talk page and noting that he apparently deleted or reverted posts on the Talk page. My understanding is that is never supposed to be done except in extreme circumstances, which do not seem to have occurred. This sort of activity cannot be good for Wikipedia. I additionally note that Sangdeboeuf has engaged in similar practices on the entry for Tamika Mallory, deleting properly sourced material which didn't seem to fit his political outlook. I haven't make an extensive review of Sangdeboeuf's actions on that article, but it seems Sangdeboeuf is engaging in the same inappropriate practices there. Interestingly, on 15:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC), Sangdeboeuf seemed to call for an uninvolved editor to judge the level of consensus in the discussion. I thought about getting involved, but when I saw the enormity of the problem that Sangdeboeuf has created, I thought an Administrator's action would better address the issues involved. Sangdeboeuf isn't going to listen to me. My suggestion is that at a minimum, Sangdeboeuf should be prevented from editing articles about Sarsour and Mallory for at least 30 days. I have not investigated further, but I suspect that temporary ban should be extended to all Middle East topics. I am an occasional Wikipedia editor, only editing things where I have specific expertise. I have purposely NOT logged in to my Wikipedia editor account to make this report, preferring to avoid possible retribution from Sangdeboeuf through repetitive and inappropriate citation of Wikipedia's editing rules and preferences. I have not participated in editing the Linda Sarsour page, nor any related pages, so I don't think that my identity is important to this discussion. If an ADMIN thinks otherwise, please advise. 76.115.64.80 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC) This really isn't the place for anonymous complaints about other editors. I expect this will go nowhere, and will be closed promptly. Bradv 01:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

User:JPL549

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor User:JPL549 has been leaving a lot of short, almost meaningless, comments on AfDs. I've seen this pattern before. I'm pretty sure I was involved in a WP:SPI about another user with this same pattern of editing, but I can't remember the details. Anybody recognize this pattern of behavior? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is not a new user. Maybe they are an experienced IP that decided to sign up, but my gut says otherwise. This needs a look from someone with access to a magic 8 ball. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Confirmed to KNTTR. RKTMan and WarahLu look to probably be the same person. Given that they all use similar edit summaries, I'm going to assume they're all socks of WarahLu, who's tagged as a sock of Wikibaji. I'll block them all in a minute. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Ash Carol

The following discussion is closed. 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 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting article was started on October 27, 2018, and Ash Carol made his first edit to the talk page on October 31[282], which marked his 9th edit to Wikipedia overall. Since then, Ash Carol has been hyper-focused on analyzing and recording the details and timeline of the shooting; keeps calling for other editors to "analyze" the facts in order to rewrite the text[283]; and continually edits and reverts the article without consensus.

Ash Carol regularly engages in cherrypicking sources to support his "facts"[284] [285][286][287][288] [289][290], keeps insisting on the (disputed) presence of a bris in the synagogue during the shooting both on the talk page[291] [292] [293][294][295][296] and in the article[297][298][299], seems unduly fixated on victims' names, locations, and other minutia[300] [301][302] [303] [304][305], accuses other editors of "derailing" conversations that disagree with his POV[306][307][308] , and refuses to answer whether he has a COI or is using multiple accounts[309][310]. Many of Ash Carol's edits to the article, done without consensus, are summarily reverted[311][312] [313] [314][315] [316] [317][318][319], wasting everyone's time.

Ash Carol is engaging in similar behavior at Tree of Life – Or L'Simcha Congregation, the synagogue where the shooting took place, adding unencyclopedic and undue content[320][321] despite warnings and reversions by other editors[322][323], and refusing to abide by consensus on the talk page (see for example end of this section). Ash Carol's continued presence on these two pages is disruptive and he should be blocked from editing these pages until he can learn how to interact with other editors and abide by consensus. Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Compromised rollback account

Asenine is currently going on a rapid revert spree. Already reported at AIV, but this needs a quick block. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by ONUnicorn. Definitely looks compromised. clpo13_(talk) 20:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow - over 200 in about 20 minutes from someone who hasn't edited since 2008. I blocked them. They have talk page access if they want to discuss it.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Haven't there been several compromised accounts today? Can a checkuser see if it's all one person? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's the vandal who does goatse / TFA porn. If there's any more in the future please do point a CU at it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there an easier way to rollback all those uses of rollback (at least the ones that are still the current revision) other than manually doing it?~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have Writ Keeper's mass rollback script? If not, I highly recommend it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ponyo I just installed it, and tried to bypass the browser's cache, but I'm still not seeing a button to rollback all. I found it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Which is a good example why long inactive accounts should have rollback removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring IP issues death threats

Per WP:Death threats, all such threats should be taken seriously. The Spanish-speaking user 190.158.26.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has a long history of making threats after being reverted or warned for edit-warring. Most recently today here and here today, and thus they were blocked for 31 hours. This IP has not been very active this year, but last year they made another death threat here.

However, the same person appears to have edit-warred using other IP addresses. This IP for example has been blocked for 2 years, as has this one, and this one for three years (apparently with another threat redacted by admin), another blocked until Jan 2019 (again with likely threads redacted by admin), another for 3 years, another for 1 year, and who knows how many others. I am quite sure these are all the same person, and clearly this is a long-standing pattern of abusive behavior, so I do not see how a 31-hour block will stop this person from behaving this way. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A permablock is needed. These are blatant death threats.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't do permablocks on IPs, especially not dynamic ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

All those blocked proxies (see WP:NOP) are clearly the same user but clearly not the same as this IP, and they have long-term blocks because they're open webhosts and we block those when we see them. The IP you reported is Colombian, is posting threats in Spanish (versus the proxy abuser's broken English threats), and is not an open proxy as far as I can tell. I've reported this to WP:EMERGENCY because of the violent threats, but there's not much else we can do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a reasonable explanation, thank you! I knew that a permablock would not happen, and was not sure about a year(s)-long block, but a few days seemed pointless. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I have no doubt that all of those long-term blocked IPs are the same person as the IP who was blocked yesterday for death threats, despite the different languages used to make the threats. They went out of their way to restore content here and here and here that the other IPs have added before, and have attacked User:Sro23 repeatedly. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone is channeling their inner Pablo Escobar, it seems. *rolls eyes* By the way, wouldn't it be appropriate to revdel their edits, at least the ones addressed to Sro23? –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate - by the way, the 31-hour block is already over, so we will see if they come back with a vengeance. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 73.168.15.161's analysis. Just because the user can switch between Spanish and broken English doesn't mean they're not the same person, when the abuse pattern is consistent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Concur with IP 73 and SMc. Ivanvector these death threats are a clear behavioral match. It is not unreasonable to believe a Spanish speaker may have a broken English. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a clear behavioural distinction between the two that I don't want to get into here. But whether they are or not, my previous response applies. This most recent IP is dynamic but not a proxy, there's no policy rationale for blocking it for more than a few days. If they show up on another IP we'll do it again. For the open proxies we already block on sight. It would be nice if the WMF could pursue these cases a little more, uh, at all, but on-wiki we will use the tools we have available. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It does seem that the current IP has stopped posting, so no need to reblock. I still wonder, though – do these clear threats not warrant a revdel? –FlyingAce^✈hello 01:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Michge

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

User:Michge has an attitude problem towards other editors. On the Kia Soul article, he made an erroneous edit about the production years of the second generation model when the third generation model has not been produced yet. When I reverted his edit, he counter-reverted it and accused me of vandalism. I then reverted his edit again, then he did another counter-revert with the line "IT IS COMFIRMED THAT NEXT WEEL NEW SOUL WILL BE UNVEILED, VANDAL" on his edit summary.

This is not the first time I've encountered this issue with him. Last year, he engaged himself in an edit war on the Hyundai Kona article, and in his revert, he wrote: " if you don't see difference between crossover and hatchback quit with editing automotive articles". In addition, he's been involved in numerous edit wars this year, particularly on the Audi A5 and Audi A7 articles. On both articles, he wrote: "don't edit on wikipedia if you don't have a clue about cars" on his edit summaries. Other edit summary comments in his history include: "english wikipedia retards", "bla bla we don't need a source to recognize a body type, if you can't do it by yourself don't edit automotive pages. It's a basic knowledge :) This is NOT a SUV", and "small changes in case of another osx vandalism".

The user has received numerous warnings about his edits on his talk page over the past five years, yet he continues to resort to edit-warring and personal attacks. Perhaps he needs some time out from editing if he keeps this up. - Areaseven (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely. His edits are pretty disruptive by themselves, but I'm also pretty sure he's evading a long-term block that he received as an IP editor for the same disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like he has a bit of a history on the Polish Wikipedia. Areaseven (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User obviously not here to build an encyclopaedia

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

---

Bajyerarsa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously not here to build an encyclopaedia, considering they're mainly engaged in trolling, vandalism, reverting random edits, telling others to fuck off etc (see contribs: their first edit ever was a blatant BLP-violation, their second edit was creating an own user talk page with "fuck off", their fourth edit was telling the editor who warned them for the BLP-violation to fuck off, etc etc...). And the final proof was them removing the AIV-report I filed. They are with all probability also a sock, and I have a good hunch about who the sock master is, but see no need to give them the attention they seek... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Ignore and close expeditiously. Two test edits when account was launched. Seven full months have passed. ALL edits to this stage have been 100% legit and have attracted not a whimper of criticism. For the record, no this is not a sock account, so whoever Thomas.W believes to be the sockpmaster, isn't. If he suspects sockpuppetry, there is a separate page for CU request. --Bajyerarsa (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't you ever get tired of doing this? And why did you remove the AIV-report I filed? Twice, even, the diff I added in my first post here, plus this... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"I" don't get tired of anything. If you think you're talking to someone else, I suggest you go and talk to that someone else because you're clearly under some misapprehension. --Bajyerarsa (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

They're now edit-warring at WP:AIV, repeatedly removing a report about them there... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I am happy for an admin to deal with this, but make your minds up whether this is AIV or ANI. And either way, I strongly suggest BOOMERARNG because Thomas.W only became angry after I removed an uncivil comment he left at a blocked user's talk. Then lo and behold after 7 months, he decides I am some "sock" but won't try for a CU. --Bajyerarsa (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea who is who else but I do see a user who is happy to abuse the process by removing plausibly valid reports about their behaviour rather than giving their side of the story and letting administrators decide. Also, there is this edit which seems very odd. I'm not sure what they are here for but I think the allegation that they are WP:NOTHERE is plausible. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The user made some good edits, and I am willing to give them a bit of rope, but edits like [324] or [325] or indeed up there in this thread suggest that they have serious difficultioes in communication and do not understand some of our basic policies such as WP:VAND. If they do not stop acting in this manner blocks are inevitable.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ymblanter. I am now removing my eye from the admin reports and returning to my contributions per normal, so if anyone wants my attention, please write on my talk. Thanks. --Bajyerarsa (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Mike Faist

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

---

Would a willing admin RevDel some of the recent vandalism on Mike Faist, particularly this [326]. Thanks in advance. – Teratix ₵ 03:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Jayron32 03:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Rampant 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.

---

Can we get someone to look at User:174.89.132.146. Edits like this are simply not what we want to see.--Moxy (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done by GeneralizationsAreBad--Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Sk8erPrince Transmisogyny on Zombieland Saga 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.

---

User Sk8erPrince has been pre-emptively closing talk pages and deleting posts, closing discussion on the topic of character Lily Hoshikawa's gender, and using the term 'transgenderism' which is a slur.

″This is not a term commonly used by transgender people. This is a term used by anti-transgender activists to dehumanize transgender people and reduce who they are to "a condition." - https://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickPenrhyn (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I never deleted anyone's posts on the talk page. Secondly, I don't even know that term is derogatory; I just assumed it means referring to transgender people and their behavior in general. Since you deemed it as offensive, I won't use it again. Thirdly, yes, I may have closed the discussions quickly, but I have valid reason to do so - several users that made the requests on the talk page created new accounts within a short period of time, which I suspected as meatpuppetry. They were all trying to push their own rationale without any reliable sources.

Eventually, both sides were able to compromise by admitting that neither side (crossdresser vs transgender) managed to cite any reliable sources, so I, the only editor in that discussion that was able to make any edits, trimmed the revision and removed all mentions of crossdressing and transgender. The other editor thanked me for accepting to compromise. This shouldn't be on ANI, as it's resolved, even though the process was a bit bumpy. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I protected the page (not the talk page) earlier today due to disruption caused by a bunch of brand-new accounts, reinstating each other edits. I did not block them because I have no idea whose socks they are, but I am absolutely certain that NickPenrhyn, who has exactly three Wikipedia edits, belongs to the same cohort.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, allow me to clarify: this belongs in ANI because of multiple instances of transmisogyny like baselessly declaring crossdressing in lieu of being trans "A male that pretends to be female is a crossdresser", and specious justifications, such as "Declined: Transgenderism does not apply to zombies." Zombies don't exist. It's baseless to suggest a fictional character can't be trans, especially to use that perspective to close a topic. I'm suggesting you're unqualified to edit this page and anything that relates to trans issues based on your behavior, and you shouldn't be reviewing things related to this topic if you're going to come at it from a bigoted perspective. Additionally, suggesting I'm a sock puppet because I saw this on social media is disingenuous.NickPenrhyn 17:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment - NickPenrhyn, this should have been discussed between you and Sk8erPrince on Sk8erPrince's talk page before escalating to ANI. (This ANI post was your first edit on Wikipedia, so there was no discussion regarding your dispute elsewhere). I'm sure something could have been worked out/discussed prior to bringing it here for an admin to intervene. I'm assuming good intentions and wanted to note this moving forward. Best, Upjav (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Upjav. You could have told me that the term I was using was derogatory, and I would stop using it. Like I said, new accounts flocking over to a single page is very suspicious, which was the primary reason why I declined the edit requests. I'm all ears to valid rationales, and eventually, I did agree to compromise because the opposing side constructed a strong argument that neither side had reliable sources to integrate into the article. Sk8erPrince (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that, you're correct Upjav. As those justifications on the talk page stand however, they are still offensive and should be edited/removed. Because I'm responding to you here I'll make this my last reply here to abide the rules and move to Sk8erPrince's Talk page if there's anything else to discuss. NickPenrhyn 18:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good :) - Shall we close this then? Upjav (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Compromised admin 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.

---

Killiondude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone off the deep end. Calidum 20:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Another compromised account. Seems to have been dealt with now. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And Mateuszica's account sent me threatening emails before it was blocked. funplussmart (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sure WMF legal knows about this problem by now. This is the worst attack on this site I have seen. funplussmart (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

As Killiondude is very much an active admin, once he comes back (which I hope he will) then he might able to advise on what other admins accounts could get compromised. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how bad Killiondude's password was if he wasn't spearphished. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

By my count, we've had eight accounts already. Seven extended confirmed and the one admin account to get past the full protection. I have never seen this before. Enigma^msg 21:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

3 admin accounts. Natureium (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Adding: That was just on the Donald Trump page. There have been some others. Garzo and Esanchez7587, to name two. Enigma^msg 21:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if an account gets compromised, could a CheckUser find out who may have done it? This is the 3rd admin account in the past week, so if it's doable, a CheckUser may want to look into this. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The Stewards are handling this - they will not only checkuser, but can global lock across all WMF projects. We don't know anything else because of WP:BEANS. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: It appears that Killiondude has regained access to his account.[327] funplussmart (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Standard reminder for everyone to check their email account and password at Have I Been Pwned? and change them if they come up. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:46.49.81.19 persistently makes disruptive edits

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

---

User_talk:46.49.81.19 has already been temporarily blocked, but after his last 1-month block expired, the user continued deleting content about flights on Minsk National Airport page and so far made 9 disruptive edits which were timely reverted. Please consider blocking the user for a longer period of time or permanently, given that this account evidently has no desire to engage in any sort of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flexovich (talk • contribs) 11:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Twinkle is broken

The following discussion is closed. 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 has been happening for at least several days, if I click the blue rollback link in twinkle, I get a page titled Wikipedia:(title of article on which I tried to use twinkle)&twinklerevert=norm which tells me that wikipedia does not have a project page with the name (title of article on which I tried to use twinkle)&twinklerevert=norm. And if I use the red vandalism button It tells me that wikipedia does not have a project page with the title: (title of article on which I tried to use twinkle)&twinklerevert=vand. Everything works fine if I am looking at the diff, but I have the problems when I try to click twinkle's rollback links from someones contribs page. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Try Github or the talk page.--v/r - TP 18:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Hello, nice person

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

---

This user is clearly not intending to improve Wikipedia. Their First two edits were to insult blacks and say that they were here to vandalize. He then replaced Road with a statement calling Wikipedians negros and threatening to destroy the site, and made an additional statement of this intent elsewhere. This looks pretty clear-cut to me. I'm requesting immediate action to be taken on User:Hello, nice person. Thank you for your time. EditControl (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. EditControl (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey

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

---

Following this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) has been WP:Hounding me, as I expected. This always happens with editors like Curly Turkey. So far, he has stalked me to three articles, seen here, here and here. Knowing what he's doing is not rocket science, and I'm not going to tolerate it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Curly Turkey edited those articles after few days to weeks after you edited them. These 3 examples are not good enough for demonstrating wikihounding. Qualitist (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

So you think that Curly Turkey showing up to those three articles in succession after our heated discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style has not a thing to do with the fact that they have largely been edited by me? I beg to differ. As the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive918#Charlotte135's behavior and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn cases show, I've been down this road before. How many more articles that I significantly edit must Curly Turkey show up to for you to buy that he is hounding me? Let's not give Curly Turkey a pass because of the articles he's improved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I clicked through to your user profile, as I do with just about everyone I interact with, and after taking a peak at some of the top articles you've edited, I corrected some MoS incompliances I saw—which, again, is what I do pretty much daily. I'm sure there are folks reading this now who can remember a bunch of their top articles suddenly popping up on their watchlists after interacting with me. This is the first time I've seen anyone describe this behaviour as something sinister.

You're really trying way too hard to "gotcha" me, Flyer22 Reborn. Perhaps some self-reflection would do you some good. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you think any of us were born yesterday? There is no other editor but me who would bounce from the Supercouple article, to the Vagina article, to the Titanic (1997 film) article. My editing interests are that unique. I can only assume how many other articles you were going to show up at before I called you out. This happens every single time I deal with an editor like you. Editors like you stalk and harass and then tell me to get over myself or that you are doing nothing sinister. What you are doing is no different than what Charlotte135 did, and that editor was recently indefinitely blocked for continuing to hound me. It's only certain editors who are like this. I've been stalked harassed enough to know. I get into a heated debate with an editor like you, and then that editor starts popping up at articles I edit to annoy. It is exactly why I state the following at the top of my talk page about disruptive editors, including WP:Socks, and disgruntled editors: "If you offend a Wikipedia editor via a significant dispute, and sometimes even a minor dispute, it is likely that the editor will seek to stalk and harass you, or get 'payback' in some other way." It's why I note that I do not list my GAs or FAs -- because it results in unwanted attention from stalkers and disgruntled editors. I've been through this time and time again. You have been in trouble times before for harassing. It was not surprising to me in the least that you popped up at the articles you did. It would be like me suddenly popping to the articles you've significantly edited. But I wouldn't...because I don't have the mindset to annoy those I've just been in a heated discussion with or others. And I'm just not interested in you or editors like you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Jesus F. Christ—I just said that I clicked through to your user profile and click through to a bunch of the articles you edited! Are you even reading what you're responding to? How can you accuse me of being "sneaky" about what I've just announced to the world?!?!?!? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

And how does that not count as you doing so to annoy me? We were just in a freaking heated discussion, where you were making all sorts of provocative and unsubstantiated accusations against me. WP:Hounding clearly notes "is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." You mean to tell me you were simply being collegial? Come off of it. As for "being 'sneaky' about what [you've] just announced to the world," look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Some sort of editing restriction between Flyer22 and Bfpage. That editor also admitted to looking at my contributions, but that editor going to the articles I edited was clearly considered "an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I don't see why you or anyone else thinks that your case is different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't being "collegial", I was copyediting the article I was looking at! If that "provokes" you, or "creates irritation, annoyance, or distress"—Holy Christ, already! What rational response is there to that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sighs. You say all that to someone who has been stalked like this times before, with the community seeing right through such comments each time. Given what was just going on between us, I can't see how anyone can actually fall for your "it wasn't mean to cause irritation" claim. Only editors who support you no matter what you do and those with past issues with me will support such a narrative. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

*Sighs* ... why does it even irritate you that I'd edit an article you have? Where does this rage towards me even come from? I wouldn't be bringing you to ANI if you'd moved a few commas in ukiyo-e this morning. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sighs. Rage towards you? How about your rage towards me? Anyone is free to see what you and I stated to each other in the aforementioned discussion. After that heated argument we had, what do you think you showing up to those articles accomplishes? All it does is increase the chance of more confrontations with you, and more confrontations with me is precisely what those other editors were looking for. If I disagree with your edits, that means reverting and you possibly reverting me back and more arguing. This is how WP:Interaction bans happen. Again, this is not something that I have not been through times before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you've been hounded before (I wouldn't know), but you haven't been today. Your tinfoil-hattery is contagious, though—you've now thoroughly convinced me that if you reverted me, it would be to pwn me. In other words, you don't come across as someone acting in good faith—you talk like someone who was hunting for an excuse to kick up some drahmah at ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I've been hounded? Yes, yes, the previous hounding cases are a "maybe" matter, despite the consensus in them that there was indeed hounding. As for showing up at articles, you act like showing you up to articles an editor has edited after insulting that editor in a discussion is not a problem...even though it has been a problem since Wikipedia has existed. You act like disagreement with you and confrontation with you is unlikely to happen in such instances. And yet many editors who've sought to annoy those they've just insulted in a discussion have done what you've done today. We have known each issues. That aforementioned MOS discussion is not the only time we have gotten into a heated debate. So, yes, this is where WP:Hounding comes in. As the MOS talk discussion shows, you are known to accuse someone of bad-faith interaction when they disagree with you. Like my use of singular they just now? Anyway, as this discussion with Beyond My Ken shows, you also wrongly accused him of bad-faith interaction. We see more of the same below that discussion; even your tone to Zero0000 there is an issue. This is nothing new from you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing it, where did they accuse you of being sneaky?Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven—This comment: "Do you think any of us were born yesterday? There is no other editor but me who would bounce from the Supercouple article, to the Vagina article, to the Titanic (1997 film) article."—coming immediately in response to my explanation of how I got to those articles—byclicking through her userpage and taking a peak at some of her most-edited articles. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

AGF, your the one who has banged on about this on this ANI so how about practicing it?.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You just said down below that Flyer is not obliged to assume good faith before crying hound, and that you are unwilling to accept CT's claim of a legit reason for checking contribs without being given further reason to do so, and you accused me (twice) on my talk of "egregiously violating policy" for having accidentally blanked one of your comments due to a string of edit conflicts, even after I had politely and patiently explained what had happened (you did it once before, but I'm not even counting that). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

When did I say that I do not accept CT's claim? As to the rest, this is not about you or me, and what I (or you) have said elsewhere is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You: I do not know the users (sic) intent.

Me: The user stated their intent.

You: No, as I said in this case it was not hounding. (Note: That's not actually what you had said; you had said you didn't necessarily think it was hounding. But AGF is not a suicide pact, if have (sic) good reason to doubt they are being truthful.

How can the above exchange not be interpreted as you doubting CT's claim?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, you said it in an edit summary to an edit you made to this thread, and in a spin-off message on my talk page; that's hardly "irrelevant". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It was said in response to your statement that policy says it is not (thus never, in effect) harassment to follow another user to a page. I just pointed out that no, it is not a case it is never harassment is is rather judged on a case by case basis.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That is an accusation of hounding, not being sneaky.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Slatersteven: Let's ask Flyer22 Reborn: Can you explain explicitly what you're accusing me of with the comment "Do you think any of us were born yesterday? There is no other editor but me who would bounce from the Supercouple article, to the Vagina article, to the Titanic (1997 film) article."? It looks to me like you're accusing me of sneakily editing these articles to get under your skin. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"Do you think any of us were born yesterday?" clearly means "You are trying to be sneaky, but I wasn't born yesterday and can see right through it." SS, are you pretending not to be able to read so that someone will point this out and you can then claim they are making fun of some disability you have, as you did to MPants last year? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest you drop this, there is not enough here to indicate he is hounding you. You have been told this by more then one users, listen.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Per what I stated above and below with links to past cases, I don't agree that there is not enough here to indicate he is hounding me. And, really, how many more articles does he need to pop up to for someone to do something? It's clearly causing me distress, and after my argument with Curly Turkey at the aforementioned guideline talk page, I don't see how anyone can think that his intentions were good-faith. But I won't fight consensus on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It is intent, not effect, that matters. Now maybe you are right and this is deliberate, maybe. But at this time there is just not enough evidence. I suggest you drop this and give him more rope, if he is harassing he is going to continue. Then come back here with a stronger case. Wait untill he does go out of his way to make nonsensical edits that just undo your work.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• F22R: You have a tendency to accuse people of "hounding" much too lightly. Please bear in mind that there are lot of legitimate reasons for monitoring other editors' contributions, and proving "hounding" is extremely difficult. Heck, I would probably be justified in monitoring your contributions so that I could jump in whenever you made a bad-faith hounding accusation as you did, say, here. You even admitted in that post that you considered yourself to have been similarly "hounded" in the past, and even include such a claim on your user page, If you offend a Wikipedia editor via a significant dispute, and sometimes even a minor dispute, it is likely that the editor will seek to stalk and harass you, or get "payback" in some other way, without recognizing the possibility that every single current candidate for ArbCom might be correct in answering my question to them on the issue in pretty much the same way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, you and I have had issues with each other. So I was expecting you, who hangs out here at WP:ANI, to state what you did above. But as the aforementioned hounding cases I've pointed to, including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Some sort of editing restriction between Flyer22 and Bfpage, show, it's not true in the least that I have "have a tendency to accuse people of 'hounding' much too lightly." You can't point to any case I've brought to WP:ANI where editors agreed that I wasn't being hounded. If any case is deemed to be a "not hounding" case after I've argued that it is, this would be the first one...and only because of Curly Turkey's clout and wiki friends. Your quote from the top of my talk page is specifically about "disruptive editors, including WP:Socks, and disgruntled editors," and it's there exactly because I have been through this so many times. It's the same pattern each and every damn time, like clockwork. It is no coincidence that I was waiting for Curly Turkey to do what he did, and he did just that. The top of my talk page also notes that I do not list my GAs or FAs because it results in unwanted attention from stalkers and disgruntled editors. I've been through this time and time again. Only the notable cases have made it to WP:ANI. And in the case this involving you and Pyxis Solitary, yes, I agreed that you were hounding Pyxis Solitary. Some of us have eyes. I am not an editor whose edits need monitoring, and Curly Turkey and I were just going at it at the aforementioned talk page. So the good faith monitoring noted at WP:Hounding does not apply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

An ANI thread from four years ago of you accusing an editor of hounding you and getting community consensus to that effect proves that "it's not true in the least that" that when you accuse me, CT and so on of hounding you are not doing so lightly? I agreed that you were hounding Pyxis Solitary proves pretty handily that you think "following" an editor, regardless of whatever good-faith reasons one might have for doing so, constitutes "hounding". You need to stop doing so. So the good faith monitoring noted at WP:Hounding does not apply. Several current and potential Arbs have pointed to the problematic (overly vague/permissive) nature of the current policy wording; the authoritative view expressed in the above-linked ArbCom finding is what I am going on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments are odd. I'm not going to entertain them. No one stated that following an editor automatically equates to WP:Hounding. WP:Hounding is clear about what WP:Hounding is. Why in the world should anyone have thought that you following Pyxis Solitary around was not hounding, given your history with Pyxis Solitary? Why in the world do you think you were the best person to do that, given your history with Pyxis Solitary? Your good faith monitoring argument is a bust, as those past ANI threads show. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What history with Pyxis Solitary? I noticed a problematic trend with her edits, checked her contribs to confirm that it was a trend, and found I was correct. Anyway, it's really not cool for you to be going around talking about how an editor who is one-way IBANned from you hounded you back in 2015 when they've hardly edited for more than a year. it comes across as grave-dancing. Anyway, "my good faith monitoring argument" was supported by every member of 2015 ArbCom, and has recently been supported by (nearly?) all candidates running for 2019 ArbCom, so how you could call it "a bust" is beyond me -- have you clicked any of the links I provided? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments are still odd. It is perfectly fine to point to past cases were I've been stalked as examples, especially when countering false claims that I "have a tendency to accuse people of 'hounding' much too lightly." Those past ANI threads do not support you on that AT ALL. And as for "they've hardly edited for more than a year," that editor has two accounts, and the latter one is active, which you would know if you took the time to read the cases against that editor. And in a more recent case, that editor's history with me was found to be a problem as well. I obviously disagree with you about your "good faith monitoring" claims. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine to point to past cases were I've been stalked as examples, especially when countering false claims that I "have a tendency to accuse people of 'hounding' much too lightly." How can you not see the flawed logic of that: your having made one or more non-bogus hounding accusations (of which I wasn't even aware) doesn't disprove the claim that that you've also made bogus hounding claims. The two are completely unrelated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who went on about a supposed "tendency to accuse people of 'hounding' much too lightly" based on me believing that you hounded Pyxis Solitary and now the accusation I've made against Curly Turkey. That isn't "a tendency" of anything. Your "a tendency" claim is flawed. You even conceded that you weren't aware of my past stalking cases, and yet you jumped the gun by acting like I just go around making hounding claims left and right, and you called for a boomerang and stated "probably grounds for an immediate block rather than the last chance a TBAN implies topic ban" below. There is no one other than possibly Curly Turkey who would support you on the notion that I some disruptive editor. Good grief. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not say you some disruptive editor good grief: I said you had made several bad-faith hounding accusations and needed to stop. That you did it once to me and once to a "friend" of mine (with whom I rarely agree on article content or the like, except when policy is unambiguous, I might point out) is kinda beside the point; you shouldn't do it more than once now that I've corrected you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

And your "made several bad-faith hounding accusations" claim is false. Furthermore, with the talking points you've made, you indicated that I was being disruptive. You even proposed a freaking topic ban. And what "friend" of yours are you talking about? Curly Turkey? If someone else, then do point to this mysterious editor. As Slatersteven has made clear, no one can look into an editor's head with regard to their intent. All we can do is go by assessment. It is your opinion that Curly Turkey was not hounding me, and that opinion does mean that it's fact. You haven't corrected me on a thing. All you have done is throw around false "tendency" claims about me and try to have me treated like a disruptive editor, as if that has any chance of happening. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You're the one who freaking accused me of freaking hounding and then freaking accused freaking CT of the same freaking thing. You need to stop this behaviour. Accusations such as "this user is engaged in hounding", when made without evidence, are personal attacks, and YOU NEED TO STOP. You've done nothing but argue in your own defense, and made no indication that you intend to back down and reflect on your own poor (policy-violating) behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, the above over-use of "freaking" is not a sign that I am "losing my cool" and flipping out; I'm satirically poking fun at the colourful language F22RB has been using throughout this thread. The BOLDED/ITALICIZED/CAPITALIZED TEXT, though, is done for emphasis, as this is a really critical point that doesn't seem to be coming across no matter how many times I repeat it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There you again with the "this is a pattern" thing. I am under no obligation to believe you or Curly Turkey. As my past stalking cases show, the community is under no obligation to take the accused person's word for it. Clearly, the "no one can look into an editor's head with regard to their intent. All we can do is go by assessment" aspect just boggles your mind. I have presented evidence, and the editor admitted specifically going to articles I've edited, just like the editor in the aforementioned 2015 case did. It is YOUR OPINION that Curly Turkey's intent was innocent. You've done nothing but derail this thread and make it about you and your belief in Curly Turkey's intent being innocent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that just turning up at the same articles is hounding, but CT does admit he looked as the users edit history and then followed him. I do not think this (in and of itself) is hounding.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: No, it's not hounding at all. It's only hounding if it's done with the specific intention of harassment (ArbCom decision permalink): CT explicitly stated in the same breath that he was fixing MOS issues. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"I do not think this (in and of itself) is hounding." So I am not sure what you are addressing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that I've clarified the policy for you, next time you can say "I am certain that, unless some other evidence is presented, this is not hounding by any means, and here's why". The quote above clearly implies a lack of certainty over what is, for me at least, a fairly cut-and-dry issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I would say the same thing, as I do not know the users intent. Thus (if) the users was indeed intending to create irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor it should be considered harassment. On the other hand if this was not the intent then it is not harassment. It is thus a question of how much you but the accused explanation, a value judgment that has to be done on a case by case basis (thus findings in one case may not be applicable (and thus cannot be policy) in another).Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The user stated their intent. Are you admitting to refusing to assume good faith even when you have no reason to do otherwise? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No, as I said in this case it was not hounding. But AGF is not a suicide pact, if have good reason to doubt they are being truthful.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

So, AGF is not a suicide pact when following it in a reasonable manner would hinder your own desired activities, but it is to be treated as a suicide pact when it would hinder me or CT or anyone else you think Flyer should be allowed accuse of "hounding"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It has not, you can still edit (and so can CT, as he has been now on a number of pages I edit, suddenly). As long as an accusations without merit is withdrawn in a timely fashion there should be no issue, we can all make mistakes or make false accusations of hounding (and of trolling).Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I will note that if a uses is constantly asking a user to explain or justify themselves is hardly enabling then to drop the stick. This should now be closed, and maybe some trouts all round. Flyer22 you do not really have a case, and all that is going to happen is you lose sympathy, ask for this to be closed. Do not dig an even deeper hole.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang time?

It just came to my attention that I actually called Flyer's attention to the above ArbCom decision well over a year ago, and she edited the thread again, indicating an awareness of my having replied to her, and she's still making the same bogus hounding accusations more than a year later. Is it time for a restriction ("Flyer22 Reborn is not allowed accuse other editors of hounding/stalking her" or something to that effect)? Honestly, this level of IDHT and disruptive hurling of baseless accusations are probably grounds for an immediate block rather than the last chance a TBAN implies, but ... well, AGF is a suicide pact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there evidence they have done this on a regular basis?Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour, if repeated after being told to stop, doesn't need to be "regular" as long as it is repeated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What are you going on about? Sighs. Replied to you above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll have to re-read my initial interaction with you at WT:V from 2016, since I recall seeing the above diff of you accusing me of hounding a year later and thinking "Yeah, that seems about right". You're doing it again here and now, so I don't think it'd be out of line to call it a recurring problem whether I was misremembering something or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this is not related to him them launching an ANI about being hounded. Thus this is not repeated behavior that is in need of action.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Slatersteven. I'm female, by the way. Hijiri88 is still hung on our past issues, including me agreeing that he was hounding Pyxis Solitary. And like I noted above, there is no hounding accusation I've made where editors didn't agree that I was being hounded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You claimed I was hounding Pyxis, based on your own twisted interpretation of WP:HOUND, and you are doing the same thing now. The only person who agreed with you in the former case was Pyxis, and no one agrees with you here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That was no ANI case. That was an argument, with you rambling at an administrator's talk page. As for "no one agrees with [me] here," we'll see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Please retract and apologize for That was an argument, with you rambling at an administrator's talk page. A brief glance at the above diffs will clearly show that at the time you made the accusation against me, I not only had not "rambled" on the page but had not even commented once (or even become aware of the discussion). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Eh? By "rambling," I am referring specifically to your comments there on that talk page. Your "at the time [I] made the accusation against [you]" statement matters not. Maybe I should point to our history so that editors will know that you commenting here is nothing but grudge antics. That is, if it's not already clear to them that you are still sour about the Pyxis Solitary matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You made a bogus accusation against me. No one agreed with your accusation. The fact that it took place on the user talk page of a member of ArbCom rather than ANI is the bit that "matters not". And no, I have a long history of pointing out bogus hounding accusations on ANI for what they are, which have nothing to do with you. My history with you is only relevant in that it means I know without engaging in specific research that this bogus hounding accusation thing is a recurring problem with you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You've derailed this thread enough with your grudge antics, including your grudge antics against Slatersteven. Your history with me is relevant because every disagreement we have is about your past issues with me. Even here, you state, "Wow, Flyer ... I didn't think you were still holding a grudge against me for this interaction fourteen months ago." It was a completely unsubstantiated claim. And let's not forget the nonsense seen by you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 17#Audience response covered under the "Critical response" heading?, where I stated, "You misinterpret everything, which is why, like I've told you before, it is frustrating trying to communicate with you." You state that "this bogus hounding accusation thing is a recurring problem with [me]," and yet the community was with me time and time again for the very valid hounding claims I've made. Sighs. Again, I won't keep entertaining you. Giving your harassment history, it is no surprise that you and Curly Turkey are of the same ilk. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Well ... yeah. Assuming you are holding a grudge against me for some past slight is actually the AGF solution in cases like that: what you said was so outrageously ridiculous that the only other explanations would be that you are incompetent (I assume you wouldn't appreciate me assuming that) or that you are trolling for shits and giggles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

*Bangs head against a wall* Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I went back and did a bit of reading: apparently I called you out for misrepresenting prior policy discussions to suit your agenda before. You really need to learn to take a hint. There, you randomly inserted discussion of unrelated disputes apparently involving child-grooming and penises into a discussion about adding OR to articles on biblical literature, Korean history and so on, and claimed that because everyone agreed with you in those child-grooming and penis discussions, I must have been wrong on what I was saying -- I really can't follow this logic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

More of your nonsense and "I'm holding a grudge against Flyer" mess, as usual. With the way you misrepresent people and make false claims, you can never accurately be stated to have called anyone out on anything. I would state that you really need to learn to take a hint, but we know know you won't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I do have a tendency to see both users who I claim hounded me and users who claim I was hounding them blocked or otherwise sanctioned by unanimous or near-unanimous consensus of either the community or ArbCom, though, don't I? So maybe you should ask yourself whether I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the subject you are talking about. Again, see the question I asked every current candidate for ArbCom and got pretty much the same answer ("Yeah, I agree") out of all of them regarding this very issue barely a week ago. (Also note the somewhat hilarious fact that I asked all the ArbCom candidates about this very issue -- a "pet topic" of mine -- a week ago, and now you are claiming that I only showed up here because I don't like you, or because I like CT, or something.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, more making this about you. This is not about you. And either way, I am free to believe what I want about you, just like editors are free to believe in the innocence of those who were found to have stalked me in the past. You talk about asking myself whether I know what you're talking about when it comes to the subject I'm talking about. Well, I throw that back at you, considering the number of times I've been stalked and that I was right about it each and every time. The trajectory is always the same, which is why I was expecting Curly Turkey to do what he did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I throw that back at you, considering the number of times I've been stalked and that I was right about it each and every time. You keep saying that, but so far you've only linked to one prior incident with one user, which makes me very suspicious that that was just the best you had on offer and that the others were a lot greyer. I linked you to an ArbCom case where they were pretty explicit in saying that no, Hijiri did not hound any of those editors who claimed he was hounding them, because "hounding" necessarily involves malicious intent and Hijiri was clear in his policy-compliant intent. Here's another one from 2013 and another from the same year. Unlike you, apparently, I don't like drahma and so tend to take two-way IBANs as they're easier to swallow than one-way, so I'm not actually at liberty to discuss a few of the other ones, but there's a thread about another editor who hounded me a bit further up this page, and another in the most recent ANI archive. And (again unlike you) I'm not into dancing on the graves of all the half-dozen or so editors with whom I'm not currently IBANned but who wound up getting (de facto, in some cases) site-banned for their hounding of me. Yeah, the ball is very much in your court. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

One more, for the hell of it. Textbook hounding, no purpose other than harassment, and clearly bogus excuse cooked up after the fact. That is hounding; it was not hounding when the above-mentioned JoshuSasori told me "Yeah, I don't like what our MOS says, so I'm ignoring it", and I looked through his contribs to bring them in-line with MOS, even though he tried to claim it was. Does this not sound familiar at all? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

One prior incident with one user? I've linked to ANI cases involving three different editors so far; that includes this, this, this and this. In the latter two links, it's the same editor. Must I also point to the User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte cases? Do you know who Nathan Larson is? Read all about him. Or how about the Cali11298 cases? Or how about the RJR3333 cases? Oh, the memories of Flyer1822 (talk · contribs). Or maybe even the Dark Mistress cases. As these discussions show, a number of editors have noted that I have been stalked and harassed many times. Do you think Herostratus was just being nice when he gave me this barnstar? No, he knows what I've been through and what I still go through on this site. So do stop talking out of your ass. Your "unlike [me], apparently, [you] don't like drahma" commentary is laughable, given the disputes you get into and that you hang out at WP:ANI. It is not like I'm looking for the drama or am playing the victim. I have actually been stalked and harassed more times than I care to remember. Pointing to past disruption, especially when accused of having a tendency of making false hounding claims and when someone states that they are "very suspicious that that was just the best [I] had [to] offer and that the others were a lot greyer" is not grave-dancing. Furthermore, you are pointing to past cases where you are asserting that you were right. Should one state that you are grave-dancing? Stop making this thread about you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

As flattered as I am that you are as interested in my ass as you are, I highly doubt any of the above included your parents' home address being posted on the site or your employer being contacted with a request that you be banned from editing Wikipedia at work. I never said you had not been hounded, merely that you had not supported your assertion that you have a long history of correctly identifying hounding and never being wrong; your assertion, on the other hand, that when I say that I know I am talking about when it comes to hounding that I am talking out of my ass is quite offensive, given what I've been through and quite readily linked you to (the home address stuff has mostly been oversighted so I'm sure you'll forgive me not linking you to that). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

As usual, you are giving me a headache. It's easy for anyone to see what you were implying. And I'm not going to go into the details of what I've had to deal with regarding Nathan Larson and his bunch. This is not "my harassment was worse than yours" Olympics. My assertion that I have a long history of correctly identifying hounding and never being wrong is right there in my "15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)" post above. A number of WP:CheckUsers can also provide examples. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment As a Muslim, I must object to Curly Turkey's use of the phrase "Jesus F. Christ". Jesus Christ is a major figure in Islam, besides Christianity, the Bahá'í Faith, and to an extent, Hinduism and Buddhism. Wikipedia is not only viewed by people belonging to those faiths, but also edited by them, so whereas different views regarding figures like Muhammad and Jesus may be accepted, as per WP:Neutrality, insults, like using the F-word for any of them, must not be tolerated. Leo1pard (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You're talking about that other Jesus, the one from Nazareth. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

If you had used the name of Muhammad, even if you didn't mean the man, that would still be considered to be offensive by Muslims, so it doesn't matter whether or not you mean any of those regarded as Prophets and messengers in Islam, you must be careful how you treat them or their names, particularly in front of Muslims. Even for the English or Romanized names of those treated as Prophets in both the Bible and the Quran, Muslims would add the honorific "Peace be upon him" besides them, and since this was done in Wikipedia, there had to be discussions on that, which shows you how much importance Muslims attach to figures whom they regard as Prophets. Leo1pard (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Leo1pard: I sympathize, and have actually advised CT to rein in his language on several occasions in the past, but given that you opened a thread further up this page about someone "using the word 'damn' against you", it would seem you are very much in the minority in this community regarding swearing as swearing. You must understand that in everyday English, among Christians and people from Christian backgrounds, "Jesus Christ" is frequently uttered as an expression of exasperation, and adding "fucking" is also quite common; and there was recently a fairly massive fustercluck discussion at WT:CIVIL with the consensus being that simply saying "fuck" or equivalent words is not in itself sanctionable without regard for context. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I see, but you also have to bear in mind that things like that can ignite great controversy outside Wikipedia, even attracting censorship from Governments, like that of Pakistan, which had imposed blocks on Wikipedia before, and where the Asia Bibi blasphemy case has happened (even if the charges were found by the court to be unreliable, and though the Government took action against hardliners), so caution must be taken. Leo1pard (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the danger of Wikipedians exercising free speech in community talk spaces potentially bringing down censorship from the government of Pakistan ... well, I think you've got a VERY uphill battle to convince the community to agree with you on that point, but I also think you really need to not try to bring that up in a completely unrelated discussion like this one. For one thing, while CT is often called out for his colourful languages, this is one of the times when that is not the case, since the accuser (F22RB) actually has more colourful language in this case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

How about everyone in this thread just stops interacting with each other other? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing would make me happier at the moment, but that wouldn't solve the underlying issues of F22RB refusing to accept the standard definition of hounding that, if I may paraphrase, "unless there is intention to harass, it ain't hounding". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

And once again, no one can look into an editor's head with regard to their intent. All we can do is go by assessment. Your opinion that their was no ill intent on Curly Turkey's part is just opinion. Your assessment is flawed for reasons already noted. But good job on derailing he thread; mission accomplished. It's always about you or your past issues with me when I'm involved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Visual metaphor for the above discussion

-EEng

Repeated tampering with references (distortion / removal), using the word 'damn' against me, and other things

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

---

Alexandermcnabb, who has authored novels and blogs, besides being active on Wikipedia for a long time, has been repeatedly tampering with references, despite trying to talk to him in Talk:Hazza bin Sultan Al Nahyan. After I asked him for assistance to turn my page Hazza bin Sultan Al Nahyan (for information, a WP:notable member of the Nahyan royal family of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi in what is now the United Arab Emirates) into an article using references like the Liwa Journal of National Archives, he did so, and things were going fine, until he made this edit on the 19th of this month, in which he split up the Liwa reference into different references with different pages, saying "citations need page numbers, it's no good quoting a whole journal article or book," even though I had already provided details like the chapter and page numbers.

Over 48 hours later, I made it clear in a revert that I had already provided the chapter and page numbers, and united the split-up reference as one reference again, and then corrected another reference, the details of which were messed up. The author of the second reference is Rosemarie Said Zahlan, so I mentioned that 'Zahlan' is the last name, and that 'Rosemarie Said' come first, but then McNabb reverted it all, saying "Please leave the citations as they were. It's better to be granular than not with facts - why would you want to remove more accurate citations?"

I decided not to immediately revert the whole thing, but make necessary corrections to references, like removing full stops in unusual places (like after the unabbreviated name of an author), and stating the first and last parts of the name of Rosemarie Said Zahlan, but then he reverted even that, saying "Dude, that's the format for citations. Leave them alone, they're good. Or create your own damn page."

I then made a 3rd revert, warning McNabb not to keep on distorting details of references like the first and last names of author Zahlan, and before he reverted that, I decided not to make any more reverts within the 24-hour period, but to talk to him about what he had done, complaining about his speeches like "create your own damn page", amongst other things.

After I finished that discussion at 06:11 AM GMT on the 22nd of this month, in which I again warned him not to distort or remove references (which he did in another UAE-related article, and we had a conversation about that), I waited another 60 hours to make the necessary changes to the details of references, and because of his insistence on keeping the Liwa reference split up based on page numbers, I decided to keep them split up, only modifying them to keep them similar in details, such as the name of the chapter ("Sheikh Hazza’ Bin Sultan Bin Zayed Al Nahyan (1905-1958) Representative of the Ruler of Abu Dhabi in the Western Region"), but he reverted even that, saying "But you haven't. You have removed a properly sourced citation with a page number and replaced it with a citation to the wrong type of source (Liwa is a journal, not a book) and obscuring the page number. Hardly an improvement." The comment is wrong because I did not remove any citation, and I stated the page numbers.

Because of that, I have decided not to even reply to his last comment in the talk-page of List of Ancient Settlements in the UAE (which he created on the 5th of September), in which he removed all the references that I put in to support an existing reference (EarthSky) that talks about only one out of 22 sites mentioned in the article, that is Jebel Faya. Because he removed those other references, the rest of the sites in the article, most of which he added, are now unsourced. Leo1pard (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

If the worst thing he says is 'damn' then you have no civility case. This screams content dispute that would be better solved with an RCF, though you both appear to have ownership issues... --Tarage (talk)

It's a damn miracle the worst thing he said was damn. And no, I have no ownership issues. I do have a load of my time being wasted issue and suspect a number of other people are now going to have theirs wasted. A list with linked items doesn't need references, IMHO. A reference with a page number is preferable to a large range, IMHO. These are the substantive elements raised in the long section above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I decided to keep your split-up versions of the Liwa Journal of National Archives in Hazza bin Sultan Al Nahyan, due to your insistence on them being separated by page numbers, even if I didn't like it, so the issue is not about me having ownership issues, but your habit of tampering with references, like distorting the first and last names of an author, and even if not every section in a list needs a reference in it, it should at least be WP:verifiable, for example, the reference that you kept in List of Ancient Settlements in the UAE talks about only Jebel Faya, not the other sites, most of which you put in, meaning that much of what you put in there is unsourced. Leo1pard (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC); edited 06:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This conversation doesn't even belong here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried to talk to you about your removal / distortion of references in the talk-pages of those articles, but you don't want to listen, and I am not alone in this. Doug Weller had already spoken to you about sourcing content, but you 'violently' disagreed with him months after he spoke to you. Leo1pard (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not about sourcing content, though, is it? It's not about distorting anything, but about you apparently not understanding how cites work. And starting needless threads on ANI. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This is about sourcing content, and you have been distorting & removing references. For example, you put ".|last=Said.|first=Zahlan, Rosemarie|date=2016|" for Rosemarie Said Zahlan, not to mention your use of the full stops. I talked to you about this, but you don't want to listen, so I had to come here, and yet you're still not willing to accept what you've done wrong, saying things like "This is not about sourcing content, though, is it?" when I already showed that it is. Leo1pard (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC); edited 08:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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