Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

BATTLEGROUND and SPA by Iwog

• Iwog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iwog today expressed that "This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war over regarding an issue on False accusation of rape ([1]). This user has edited solely on this article and its associated talk page. They made a few edits initially over the presentation of percentages in the article's lead and later adding a sentence to the lead that, to me, appeared to be a tendentious edits to try to comment about the "flip" of the topic ([2], [3]). This user has repeatedly opined about the "bias", "lies", and "dishonesty" in the article and that the lead is "written intentionally to deceive".

I am requesting admins and/or the community review this user's behavior. To me, this user's behavior seems very disruptive. I know I have stronger-than-average feelings about this topic, so I'm also asking for a "reality check" that this user is indeed being a problem and that it is not my own stances on the issue making me view their behavior as such. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. It seems like this editor is more interested in pushing their POV rather than interest in verifiability. In fact, this editor mentions "accuracy" multiple times in edit summaries [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. In the third diff, the editor engages in the fallacy that the truth is always "somewhere in the middle". Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and it's clear that this editor isn't here to contribute to the project but to crusade against perceived underreporting of false rape. The editor even says they're "going to war", which is good evidence that they're viewing this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and not engaging with the project in good faith. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The main complaint against me seems to be one of semantics. Since I'm new here, I was not aware that "going to war for truth" made my contributions into a battleground and you will find the rest of the subject is treated objectively. Although links were given for my use of the word "accuracy", no links nor any quotes were given that in any way indicated I was insisting "the truth is in the middle". I am well aware that this topic is rife with strong emotions on both sides which makes it vitally important that it is treated coldly and objectively. IMO the article is far from objective and contains much bias which I have detailed in great length. The accusation that I am not here to contribute is false. I am only here to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwog (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing my actual quote, "The actual number lies somewhere in the middle", I will clarify that my intention was to say the true number can lie anywhere within the data set bracketed by both known ends of the spectrum. I can see how this was misinterpreted. At no time did I ever intend to claim a number was half way in between or located anywhere within the set of unknowns. This is not a fallacy, in fact it's a statement of mathematical fact. Iwog (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest to you that maybe you should start with topics you don't feel so strongly about first, then? You should learn the ropes first before diving into articles that have the discretionary sanctions warning. For example, read up on WP:V. Accuracy is not a standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can believe whatever you want is "accurate", but we only include content that is verifiable. You don't seem to have a grasp of basics like these so I recommend that you edit in other areas first rather than edit war against multiple editors. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again I have to take issue with your use of semantics here. I am not using the term "accuracy" to indicate anything other than adherence to the citations being presented. In short, the way I am using the term is ONLY about statements on the page being verifiable.Iwog (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Added: This is the first instance you cited: [9] It is clear that I am arguing for the inclusion of a large set of unknowns which is present in every single study being referenced. It's obvious that "accuracy" here means adherence to facts that can be verified. Iwog (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We've actually already explained to you that including the conviction rate with the fully intended implication of "any report that doesn't result in a conviction is or could be false" is a WP:OR violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes you've explained it but you are wrong. Currently the implication is "any report that cannot be prove false is true". Please explain how this isn't a WP:OR violation since every study admits unknowns exceeding 80%? Iwog (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That implication is also present in virtually all of the published research on this and every other kind of crime victimization: crime stats are usually based reported crimes, and these victimizations presumed true unless there is evidence that an assault did not happen. To be clear, "evidence" is a much lower standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - the figures reported in the research don't represent "proven" false allegations at all, they represent allegations where there was a good reason to believe the accusation was false. Perhaps you think we should record crime victimizations differently, but Wikipedia adheres to reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Iwog, in this revert that you describe as "far more accurate," you add text reading Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true. This asserts, without evidence, that "conviction by a court of law" and "can be presumed to be true" are synonymous... yet a failure to convict can occur because the jury thinks an accusation is true but is not convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. It can occur when 11 jurors are utterly convinced and one hold-out is being stubborn for reasons unrelated to the case. It can occur because the evidence relating to sexual assaults can be thin as such crimes often happen in private locations without witnesses and as victims may not immediately report, resulting in a lack of corroborating physical evidence. Convictions can also occur when the evidence is thin and the jury is biased - look at the number of unsafe convictions that have occurred due to racial prejudice, as one example. Do you maintain that a jury conviction is needed for a victim's statement that s/he was raped to be presumed to be true? EdChem (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Iwog is a pure WP:SPA and obviously came into WP hot; this is pretty obvious subtweeting of the Kavanaugh matter. I propose a TBAN for anything related to gender-relations under the gamergate DS; any admin can do this. This person needs to stay away from this topic that is too-charged for them, and try to learn what we do here and how we do it, on non-controversial topics. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support this. Iwog's userpage suggests a pretty close connection to the Men's Rights Movement - I don't think this necessarily precludes them from ever editing productively on gender issues, but they clearly have more passion than knowledge and they need time to learn the ropes elsewhere. Nblund ^talk 15:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't believe men's rights activists can ever productively edit on gender topics unless they show proof that they're genuinely remorseful and denounce it. Men's rights activism is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree++. Suggest topic ban from gender and sexuality, broadly construed, per the GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions--Jorm (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Misguided, misinformed, and sometimes-to-frequently used as cover for sexist beliefs and language, but "hate speech" is an overkill claim, as is the notion that people who don't share your beliefs should be barred from editing certain topics. That's really not how WP is supposed to work, unless such people are bringing disruption with them, which should be decided on an individual basis. Statements like this just serve as fodder for the "left is out to get us" conspiracy theories, anyway. Grandpallama (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unfriendly enough to women and other minorities as it is. If you want Wikipedia to offer safe haven to misogynists on gender topics, then by all means, advocate for misogyny. It's my personal opinion that hatred has no place here. And no, I don't want to ban people that disagree with me, or I'd be asking for bans against everyone who voted differently from me on WP:AFD. Please don't mischaracterize my opinion as "ban people who disagree with me". – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Characterizing people on the conservative end of the sociopolitical spectrum as engaging in hate speech is not appropriate, unless they engage in actual hate speech. Implying that I'm advocating for misogyny is dangerously close to a personal attack and also not appropriate. Pointing out that you are suggesting you'd like to ban people from editing on this topic who disagree with you is a perfectly accurate characterization of the extreme position you laid out, including the expectation that there should be public apologies that demonstrate "genuine" remorse. Wikipedia should be a safe place for everyone who edits it, and those who engage in any unacceptable behavior should be immediately addressed, but expanding the definition of that behavior to include positions you dislike by trying to classify them in a new way while also expecting displays of contrition in order to earn the right to edit again is misguided. And, as I said, it feeds the trolls who seize upon such statements as proof that Wikipedia is some sort of weird leftist hotbed, which it is not. Anyway, this is tangential to the specific behavioral question that was brought here. Grandpallama (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What in the world? You realize I'm not saying "ban all conservatives from Wikipedia for being misogynists", right? Mens rights activism was specifically identified by the SPLC as a hate group. It is not controversial to suggest that hate groups like white supremacists, male supremacists, and Nazis should not be allowed to edit in areas where they have an agenda of hate to push, and I would like you to reconsider the difference between advocating that hate be restricted from certain areas on Wikipedia and restricting people I disagree with from talking. There's a world of difference between the two. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What in the world is right, as I think we're not exactly so far apart. As I said, hate speech should be restricted, but it should also be recognized that the SPLC (and even our own page on the so-called MRM) draws some distinctions between "male supremacy" (which is what it categorizes as hate groups/speech/activity and what I now think you were specifically saying you'd like to see outed as such) and the men's rights silliness, and acknowledges (as I did) that there are some legitimate voices in the latter that don't necessarily fall into the former. Every male supremacist is into men's rights activism, but not all of the goofy men's rights activists are male supremacists. Most of the ones I encounter on a daily basis who describe themselves as men's rights activists are just anti-feminists or traditionalists who exhibit some ignorance or poorly thought-out positions, and say largely stupid (but not really hateful) things, rather than seek to advance some sort of actual ideological creed. I actually think we're on the same page and just disagreeing over a point of semantics. If you are saying that male supremacy is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia, then we're simpatico. Grandpallama (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The only thing the MRM has had even a remotely valid point to make about since the mid 1990's is that father's are more frequently given the short end of the stick in family court and that some feminists occasionally say hysterical things. Literally everything else they go on about is pure misogyny, and misogyny is absolutely "hate speech". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support any and all sanctions that are on the table I've gone on record as rejecting the usefulness of TBANning SPAs, so I would support a community indef block, or a block with a broad TBAN set as the unblock condition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed to just block the NOTHERE sock-abusing troll. Nothing more needs to be said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly related: although Iwog has largely gone silent, a MugyuToChu (talk · contribs) was created this morning sided with Iwog in her first and only edit about 20 minute later. I'm not crazy for thinking this seems like a very hamhanded attempt at trolling or concealing sock puppetry, right? Nblund ^talk 22:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:Nblund for pointing this out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this notification at the top of the page. I am a feminist and one of the first articles I looked at was this one because of the Kavanaugh issue going on right now. I'm surprised at the rude reception I'm getting. If I understand what the BATTLEGROUND law means, then Jijiri88, Roscolese, and Nblund definitely seem to be violating it with how they're treating me. It's a shame, because looking at their edits all three also appear to be feminists. Can't we all get along? MugyuToChu (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Here's Iwog on their hobby horse: "Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true." One step at a time: there is no "likewise". One source, this source, cannot establish "generally agreed upon". Where is the "1-5%" on this page? "Total rape allegations"--the source provides data from the US; globalize, Iwog. Finally, "and can be presumed to be true" is complete BS: it's original research, POV commentary. Iwog will have us believe that 95 to 99% of rape allegations are likely false? And all this in the lede (or lead, whatever...). So, we have here a toxic soup of SPA, POV, OR, and possibly CIR (every step I laid out involves incompetence of some sort--rhetorical, logical, situational). Place a topic ban, or (someone) impose something useful via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

So, when is somebody gonna block this guy?

Sorry to paraphrase the worst extra ever, but the above-cited WP:DUCK behaviour is grounds for immediate indefinite block of both accounts. @Yunshui: Sorry to ping you, but you're kinda my go-to for sockpuppetry issues, and buried at the bottom of a relatively stale ANI thread this ran the risk of not being noticed before getting archived. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but it's not going to be me (nor Drmies, who has also run an inconclusive CU with regards to this). There's no technical evidence linking the two accounts, and as yet I don't think the behavioural evidence is sufficient (suspicious, yes; suspicious enough to warrant the check - but not enough to warrant a block in the absence of anything else). No comment on the rest of the above. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The sock that turned up the other day, was CU'd to be User:Architect 134, a notorious false-flag trouble maker in the Nsmutte vein. This could be similar, although it's quacking loudly - who spells the first paragraph of an article "lede" with their very first edit? Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui is correct--that is, there is no support for a CU block. And while some editors deserve to be blocked for one single edit, this is not yet the case. Black Kite, I believe you are correct too: this is a troublemaker, and it certainly quacks, but given the repetitive nature of trolling, who knows. At any rate, if this ever turns into an RfC or a more formal discussion, an admin/seasoned editor will know how to weigh such drive-by comments... Drmies (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding on to the WP:DUCK, there's this diff [10] that Simonvino immediately tried to undo when they realized they'd given themselves away as Iwog. Pretty sure the "talk page discussion" and "dragged to ANI by agenda motivated editors" is Iwog forgetting that they're on on the Simonvino account. Not to mention this really silly edit on User:MugyuToChu's user page [11]. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Er no - Simonvino wasn't Iwog, they were User:Architect 134, that was proved by a CU. It's actually pretty typical joe-jobbing by A134 - writing something that "gives them away", then immediately reverting it as if they've suddenly reaslised what they've done. User:Nsmutte has been known to pull the same trick. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:PAID ; WP:COI

Good morning. I just would like to highlight that I suspect (talk) to violate WP:PAID ; WP:COI to be paid by a competitor company of IONIS Education Group to delete anything concerning this education group and try to influence other users. For me it is quite clear looking of the black log of the user and his history. But I am not sure so I prefer to rely on your opinion. Kind Regards, 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:B5A6:6D4B:CEFE:28CE (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC

• Previous ANIs [12] [13]. Time for WP:BOOMERANG? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• This has been examined multiple times and found that anonymous IPs are attempting to add promo material on this topic and then when EulerObama reverts their content and restores a NPOV they bring him to ANI. A boomerang might be appropriate, but this is like the 3rd or 4th IP to do this and I'm not sure any kind of block/ban would stop this. I think it may instead be necessary to semi-protect more of these IONIS pages so the IPs cannot keep doing this. IONIS Education Group has already been semi-protected by the admin TomStar81, based on a "long term pattern of WP:COI and WP:PAID based editing." I'm thinking IONIS School of Technology and Management, ESME-Sudria, as well as Institut supérieur européen de gestion group may need this. They are also creating various promo articles that EulerObama is AfDing, but I don't see a good way to stop these IPs from doing that. -Obsidi (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Since there is no indication that the POV pushing and the self promotion from the IONIS_Education_Group is ever going to stop, I second the proposal for a long term semi-protection of all the articles directly linked to that company so we can at least control the damage. A good starting point for the articles to protect is the list of all the schools of the group listed here. --McSly (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the ones that have had issues. There are, however, some 40 articles about/linked to the education group in total. Black Kite (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite. --McSly (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I do maintenance on French wikipedia. See : [14]

I have seen how IPs use wikipedia as a means of promotion (false information, inter-wiki spam). We have therefore removed unnecessary items. This way, you can manage the pages easily.

It happens to be one of the few topics that makes spam everywhere (inter-wiki spam) and I thought it was important to clean up English wiki too.--EulerObama (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

SanAnMan

User:SanAnMan (talk) reverted an edit I made to an article for an episode of South Park, which appears to be one of this user's areas of interest. I engaged with the user on their talk page attempting to discuss precisely how, in their view, my edit violated policy. When I said they weren't being specific, the user said it was "blatantly apparent [I] just want to argue" and that I should stop leaving messages. When I said that that wasn't constructive and suggested dispute resolution, they simply decided to remove any messages I leave. Could someone step in and say this behaviour is not acceptable? ----92.21.174.27 (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like he would be open to dispute resolution, but there are options that don't require his participation, such as starting a request for comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not ideal - the RFC page says "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others". If someone refuses to make such a reasonable attempt, is this not a conduct issue? And if not, I consider my edit just a minor improvement rather than a full-scale rewriting of the page; an RFC seems overblown. Would you still recommend RFC in this context? I'm willing to go ahead with it there really aren't any other options. --92.21.174.27 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You could post to the article's talk page, wait a few days for a response, and see what happens. If nothing comes of it, I think a request for comments would be justified. If there were problems after that, it would more clearly be a conduct issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll do that. ----92.21.174.27 (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Hello, I'm going to attempt to clear up what I believe is a very foggy and incomplete situation here. Let's start from the beginning. The article Stunning and Brave was first edited by User:79.75.139.38 on April 6, 2018. This IP-only user had made no previous edits prior to this, and I deemed the addition of the content to the article to be in violation of policy at WP:TVPLOT and WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. As a side note, it is unfortunately rather common to have to revert edits such as this by one-time IP-only editors for this same reason on many television episode pages, and these policies are in fact specifically mentioned in the talk page of the article. This edit was then reverted by User:85.211.212.153 in August 2018 (4 months later), so at the time, I had no way of knowing if this was the same editor or not. That reversion was again reverted by me, this time in the edit summary explaining that the edit was in violation of TVPLOT. It was at this time that User:85.211.212.153 left the first message on my talk page asking for further explanation. In an effort of good faith, I replied with the key lines out of the policy exactly what he had violated. His response was to state that I should "specify what (I) objected to in (his) edit". Again in good faith, I eventually replied with more specific details, again using the text from the policy as guideline. His response was that he wanted to break down point-by-point his additions. I am just another editor, and I did not feel it was my responsibility to try to teach and/or explain in specific detail WP policy that is clearly written, and yes, I did feel that at this point he was kind of beating a dead horse, so yes, I replied and asked him specifically to not message me directly again, and since I felt there was no point in continuing the conversation I removed the thread.

Now here's where it gets more interesting and convoluted. He eventually contacts me again but this time as User:92.21.174.27, the third different IP from what I now concluded was the same person (79.75.x.x, 85.211.x.x, and now 92.21.x.x). The IP-hopping from three different networks raised my radar here, and that's when I began digging a little deeper. The very first edit made by 92.21.174.27 was to modify the user talk page of User:94.197.120.175. That particular IP address (94.197.x.x) has been range-banned and blocked for 6 months since September 25, 2018. That same date, coincidentally enough, is the date that User:94.197.120.175 made that first edit. I also found it rather unusual that a relatively-new IP editor would already know how to do such things as API, piping links, and other such details which are generally not as easily gleamed by most relatively-new IP-only editors (my opinion here).

In summary, I firmly believe that not only did I act in good faith towards User:85.211.212.153 by 1) directing him to the WP policy in question in the reversion itself, 2) quoting him directly the section of the WP policy that the edit was in violation thereof, and 3) further explaining the details of his edit in contrast to the policy, but I have high reason to suspect that User:92.21.174.27 may in fact be IP-hopping to avoid the range ban mentioned earlier. I think we may possibly be being played here. I thank you for your time and attention. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's always going to be an opposing point of view in any conflict. First, I'd point out that IP addresses frequently change outside of a person's control. It doesn't necessarily mean anything that someone uses many different IP addresses. I understand that it may seem suspicious to see IP editors who are familiar with wikicode and obscure processes, but some of them have been editing anonymously for years without being disruptive. These IP editors may indeed become caught in range blocks, but it doesn't necessarily mean the range block was meant for them. If someone is being polite and trying to engage with you, it's unlikely they're an LTA vandal who makes threats. (This seem to be what the range block was for.)

Second, I know it's frustrating to deal with people who may want to expand plot summaries beyond the recommended limits (or in ways the guidelines discourage), but there's occasionally going to be some degree of discussion necessary. Sometimes it helps if you address their questions and concerns. Someone may be trying to see things from your point of view but need help understanding where you're coming from. Once you find a better way to explain yourself, you might quickly find consensus in your favor. If you're finding it frustrating or tedious, sometimes WP:DRN helps. Or go to an RFC and let uninvolved consensus rule. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about the IP hopping possibly being just a coincidence and possibly out of a user's control, but as a person who actually works in the IT profession (it's my RL job), I still find it highly unusual that one user would hop across three different networks. If the IP had changed within a certain range, that would have made more sense to me. It's also still highly suspect to me that when he changed his IP to 94.21.174.27 that the very first post made from that IP was to modify the talk page of another IP account that had been long-term blocked the exact same day that his IP was first used. Anyways, that's neither here nor there at this point, he's raised his issue on the article's talk page (which, IMO, is where this whole process should have begun from day one) and we'll see what other editors have to say about it. I still feel that I did my honest in good faith best to try to answer his questions to the best of my ability. I appreciate your candor and feedback. It's admins like you that make this place a little better for all of us. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I should probably respond to your detective work, @SanAnMan:

User:79.75.139.38, User:85.211.212.153 and User:92.21.174.27 are indeed all me; apologies if there was any confusion about that, but I thought given my editing patterns it would have been obvious to any observers that that was the case. I don't think I can explain the 'network hopping' because I don't really know what you mean by that, they are just dynamic IP addresses assigned to me by my ISP.

I have not, however, edited as User:94.197.120.175. That did become my IP address when I was using Wikipedia from my mobile phone on the bus home from work. I'd forgotten I wasn't at home, and wanted to check my talk page to see if there were any further developments in this dispute. When I observed the prior vandalism emanating from the IP address, and the subsequent blocks, I thought it would useful for observers to understand it was a dynamic IP and not a single vandal. By the time I submitted my edit, however, I'd arrived home and connected to my WiFi again. If there was a block applied to that IP address on the exact same day it was assigned to me, then that's just coincedence.

So, no suspicion necessary. I'm not a vandal, just a reasonably-experienced anonymous editor with a dynamic IP address.

As for raising the issue on the article's talk page - if that was what you wanted me to do in the first place, why didn't you say so? I contacted you directly because you were the only involved editor. I'm still somewhat upset about your refusal to engage with me on your talk page - I think the above suspicion of me being a block-evading vandal shows you are/were not assuming good faith in me. Can you please do so going forward? --92.21.174.27 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I can assume good faith with you, however, I have absolutely no further interest in dealing with you directly. You have raised your concerns on the article’s talk page and we will see what other involved editors have to say about it. Please do not contact me on my talk page again. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Tapaterra001 - repeated copyvios and other issues

• Tapaterra001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tapaterra001 has added multiple copyvios at Virtual learning environment, even after several warnings and advice from various editors. Please see the recent edit history of Virtual learning environment with multiple revdels. The latest edit ([15]) is again a copyvio: the text after "In the last 10 years, ..." is 1:1 copypasted from the referenced bbcactive.com source ([16]). Previous text in the same edit is also copied, but from another source (the first one). See also User talk:GermanJoe#RD1 requested, where previous revdels have been verified and discussed in more detail.

Aside from the copyvios, other secondary problems are: the user adds non-neutral content based on low-quality sources and doesn't react to any good-faith messages to resolve such issues. GermanJoe (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I blocked for 31 hours, multiple warnings have been given.S Philbrick(Talk) 00:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I was considering an indef but am a slow worker. If the copyright violating behavior continues, I recommend that the next block be indef with a clear expectation of avoiding copyvio and engaging in talk page discussions as a condition of an unblock. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You are NOT a slow worker. I'm reallyrarely the one to issue a block because by the time I do my homework someone else has usually done it. In this particular case, I've been previously involved, having reverted several of the copyright violations plus RD1 of the edits, so I was ready as soon as I saw them do it once again after a final warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Really, or rarely? EEng 20:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The behavior is continuing, despite the multiple warnings and temporary block. See Special:Diff/862383895, a copyvio of http://www.hrpub.org/download/20170228/UJER25-19508715.pdf. I hate that it has to come down to this, but this looks like a clear case of CIR. I'd suggest an indefinite block at this point.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism/targeted harassment

Approximately a year ago I was annoyed by the fact that the examples of Twitter bots in the examples section of the Twitter bot wiki page, that all the examples of Twitter bots were inactive, they either didn't exist or were suspended or were inactive; I was annoyed by that and as I have two twitter accounts that are Twitter bots (@maskchievous @crowdfundedkill) and they're good examples of Twitter bots, in particular @maskchievous as it auto tweets a random meme with a random emojicon and it also regularly auto changes its profile pic, then I thought to myself my Twitter bots are good examples of Twitter bots and so I decided to update the Twitter bot wiki page adding my two Twitter bots (@maskchievous @crowdfundedkill) to the examples section of the wiki Twitter bot page.

My motive for adding content was not for any personal gain, it was solely to make the wiki page better.

The result of me adding content did dramatically improve the Twitter bot wiki page as my Twitter accounts were good examples of Twitter bots and as I've said all the other examples of Twitter bots were inactive Twitter accounts.

Approximately 6 months later user: Audiodude complained saying that he didn't like that persons had added their own Twitter accounts to the Twitter bot wiki page, he was making reference to the content I had added. Audiodude didnt care less that the content I added made that wiki page better, he was just being spiteful. Audiodude later spitefully removed the content I had added.

Audiodude motive for removing the content I had added was malicious, it was done out of spite! It was essentially targeted harassment of me and was vandalism of the wiki page as his motive for removing content was malicious.

The result of Audiodude removing the content I'd added made the Twitter bot wiki page worse! which proves my case!

I contacted Audiodude about this but he denied it and lies claiming he removed the content I added for other reasons but Audiodude is lying as Audiodude had originally made comments referring to the content I'd added saying that he didn't like that the examples of Twitter bots I'd added were my own Twitter accounts but Audiodude couldn't use that reason to remove content so Audiodude invented a reason that would disguise his real motive for wanting to remove the content.

User: Audiodude should be banned. Also the content I added which Audiodude removed should be put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardeeHar (talk • contribs) 01:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

So... you're annoyed by the fact someone removed your own bots from the page? adding your own bots to the page demonstrates your clear Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It was removed because you did not provide an independent source for it, as clearly said in this edit. Also, please stop calling Audiodude a "vandal" and don't call his removals "vandalism"; comment on content, not on contributors. theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, did you read the red notice on the top that clearly says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page"? I have notified them for you but I highly doubt Audiodude is going to get "banned" and your edits re-added. theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. Please also let me know to what extent I need to re-explain or respond. I believe my comments on my talk page speak for my feelings on this. I believe there's no "targeted harassment" because the first time I heard of this editor was when he or she started posting on my Talk Page. —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC) audiodude (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

HardeeHar, you obviously have a glaring conflict of interest regarding this content, and I recommend that you read that link at least three times, thinking about yourself as you read. Then move on to complying with the mandatory paid editing disclosure. Defer to experienced, uninvolved editors at all times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Still, targeted hatrrassmentharrasent [17] remains a serious problem. EEng 14:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Lo!—and it was the wikipedian's way to be consumed by assment. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

User: I_JethroBT

The user made a personal attack against me, a defamatory, discriminatory and stigmatising attack against me.

The user messaged me in which they refer to me as a "talk page stalker".

Firstly, I'm not a stalker and referring to me as such is defamatory.

Secondly, the 'talk page stalker' wiki page refers to such a person as -

"Talk page stalkers often make very constructive commentary, and should not be confused with wikihiunders. On the other hand, neither are they to be confused with people who have a life."

As you can see it refers to such a person as being someone that has no life, which is stigmatising and discriminatory when you take into account that I am physically disabled/an invalid and am house bound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardeeHar (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. I JethroBT is referring to himself as a talk page stalker. Reyk _YO! 11:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• • Also, heads up to @I JethroBT: Reyk _YO! 11:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I notified I JethroBT at their talk page, like you are supposed to do and were told in the section immediately above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• For anyone who wants to avoid this kind of misunderstanding in the future, you can use {{tpw|safe=yes}}, which produces (talk page watcher). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  Or {{tps|w}} which is even shorter, —PaleoNeonate – 01:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• One editor, two frivolous complaints in less than a day. I'm tempted to apply a boomerang... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, after reading this I am of the opinion that this individual should be encouraged to apply their talents in a more appropriate venue than Wikipedia. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• Welp, this was a misunderstanding. I probably should just stop using that tps template altogether-- I have to wonder why the term "stalker" caught on for it. Thanks for the suggestion Ivanvector. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 13:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

A bit of harmless fun from the early days, mostly. This discussion might also be enlightening. (I'm not suggesting rehashing it). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and I JethroBT: See also: [18] GAB^gab 20:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The bit on the Talk Page Stalker page saying “On the other hand, neither are they to be confused with people who have a life." is completely intended to be humorous and not taken seriously. Kindly look at the box on the top of the page saying “This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it too seriously.” Vermont (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I do believe this young lad here may be trying to inform us of a persistent wolf attack... --Tarage (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting claims

@HardeeHar: I noticed these edits in older revisions of your user page. There is a particular wiki page relating to a person I know personally, this person confirmed to me that most of the wiki page about him was BS; he has no control over that wiki page nor did he consent to it and he has publicly disputed the claims about him in said wiki page! News media lied about him and the wiki page sites those lies. this is indeed considered having a conflict of interest in relation to that person's article (see WP:COI for more information). Having an article about us is not always a good thing, especially if it exists because of notability acquired through a controversy. I did not check which article, but please see WP:BLPCRIME, in some cases an article can be deleted). also I've have admins gang up on me bullying me and defame me calling me a stalker, this bullying and name calling clearly an attempt to provoke me into arguing with them so as they could maliciously ban me. Calling standard communication and warnings bullying suggests you may not be here to build the encyclopedia where communication is important for learning and consensus forming (WP:CONSENSUS). In the talk pages of one particular wiki page I have seen contributors openly conspiring to create a blog on which they'll make certain claims, then they would add the claims to the wiki page and cite the blog and claims which they had created! This would be unacceptable per Wikipedia policies (see WP:IRS, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:USERGEN, etc). Basically Wikipedia has its own version of the truth and its own version of what the word proof and credibility mean; it's an interesting website full of alternative facts. This also suggests that your concerns may not be about building an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. —PaleoNeonate – 01:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thor's Axe WP:IDHT WP:RGW and edit warring

• Thor's Axe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Transition from Ming to Qing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive993#Flaring tempers over Chinese history
• 26 September 3RR case resulting in 48 hour block

I'm a bit sad that it's come to this already, but this new user, whose edits are restricted to articles about the transition between the Ming and Qing dynasties refuses to listen to advise from Kleuske and myself and is now over the WP:3RR brightline for the second time on Transition from Ming to Qing. The crux of the matter appears to be a WP:RGW devotion to documenting military rape and bride-taking by Manchu forces during the wars of the Ming-Qing transition; however it's led to frequent issues with WP:NPA against Opasney (here's an example), a complete failure to assume good faith, a lot of WP:IDHT toward my frequent attempts to explain the concept of consensus to them and, of course, serial edit warring. This user was already blocked for 31 hours for previous edit warring on this article, and appears not to have learned their lesson. In addition, while they were subject to the attentions of a notorious joe-jobber while blocked, they did admit to creating a second account "as a backup" though they haven't broken WP:SOCK yet. I didn't want to WP:BITE the newbie, but Thor's Axe just won't listen. If the community feels their contributions might still be of use to the encyclopedia, then an indefinite topic ban from the history of China is probably in order so that they can learn how to operate within a consensus model in less personally contentious areas. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added some links above including the 26 September 3RR case. When I first saw this it seemed to be a case of Thor's Axe warring to add unsourced information. A typical revert by Thor's Axe is here, and his edit summary is typical of the reasoning he wants us to accept: The version you kept did not reach full consensus, since there is ongoing dispute about its content. When he reverts, he often removes sources added by others. An admin could simply wait until he breaks 3RR again and then issue a longer block, since he appears oblivious to actual consensus. Normally we might consider article protection as an option, but I wouldn't favor that here, since he appears to be the cause of the problem. If I am the closer, I'm considering a much longer block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're already over WP:3RR today. I only brought it here instead of WP:3RR/N because of the WP:RGW, WP:NPA and WP:IDHT elements to the situation which compound the edit warring and WP:OWN tendency. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

An additional note: if this user wasn't brand new, I'd probably be asking for a long-term block. About the only defense in their favour is that they may simply not understand a lot of Wikipedia's culture. WP:RGW is a pretty easy policy to run afoul of early on, especially when you're sure you're right. I don't think Thor's Axe should be editing Chinese History articles right now, but if there's a chance they could learn to be a better editor in areas where they're not so invested in a specific POV, it might be a reasonable course of action. Of course if the consensus is that it's not worth the trouble, I'm not going to be pushing against a long-term block. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt these are new users... Perhaps sockpuppeting should be looked into?

Thor's Axe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Montalk123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

&

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

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

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

Epeyhuza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.244.10.48 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that it's deeply unlikely that Thor's Axe and Opasney are both socks of the same sockmaster considering they've been involved in a substantial content dispute on these pages. Furthermore, I have seen nothing to suggest Opasney is anything other than a decent Wikipedia editor. However if Thor's Axe is actually a sock of an experienced editor then yes, my WP:BITE concerns would go away. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're the same person. I'm saying they're two different people. Compare the edits by Opasney and Milktaco on each article. All of Opasney's revisions have restored the articles to Milktaco's older versions. And for being "new," Opasney is well aware of Tongolss judging by his edit summaries. Both users have history with each other. Milktaco was originally Rajmaan but did a couple tricks to transfer his edits to Milktaco. As for Thor's Axe, he has the exact same agenda as Montalk123/Tongolss.

Please open a sockpuppet investigations page. Do not provide just a bare list in an ANI, because if there isn't much tying some of these people together, it unfairly drags them into this stuff. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Again I can guarantee that I am not using multiple accounts. Also I would like to explain a bit about my actions. Most importantly I do not think my edits were unsourced. There are links to my edits. Thor's Axe (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I admit I was a bit emotional. Because I cannot assume the other user Opasney is editing with good faith, since he kept accusing me of lying or fabricating without a valid reason. The very first response of it was not pointed at my comment, but me as an individual. This means there was no discussion from the very beginning, as Op made it into a war straight away. Here is the first response from Opasney to my first edit on talk page. You may check the first few edits on the talk page. I am also frustrated for things to reach this stage. Hereby I claim: I AM WILLING TO STOP EDITING NOW, before a consensus is reached. I will try my best to let that happen and discuss with Opasney. However I also would like Simonm223 or any of the administrator to act as a fair third party in the process. And declare that a consensus is acquired when reasonable for me. Thor's Axe (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Also the dispute between me and Simonm223 is over the definition of a stable version. According to his claim the previous version is stable because it did not trigger debate for a relatively long time. I find this way of determining what is a stable version rather random. Also Kleuske has been talking to me in a very condescending manner on my talk page, using phrases that "I don't give an owls hoot about what you "reviewed" or not." and "Have you not learned anything". I find this deeply offensive and I despise her rudeness. While I agree it is rational to listen to more experienced users, she should communicate properly as a basic. Thor's Axe (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, please kindly note that in my latest edit no sources were removed. This indeed happened in my first few edits before the 48 hours block, but I learned from that and made a compromise. Again I think you misunderstand my good intention because of my apparently aggressively manner of editing, which was largely triggered by the offensive behaviours of Opasney (again he used personal attack, claimed all my points to be lying or fabrications from the beginning to the end and ignored some of my sources).

Again, I can stop the editing now and try to reach a consensus. But with the current situation I think your opinions were a little bit biased against me, since I might have broken some of the rules. I hope you carefully can view the case, and provide the necessary support for me since I do not believe Opasney is editing with good faith. Thor's Axe (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

So basically you assume bad faith with regards to Opasney, claim there is consensus when a cursory glance at the talk-page shows its absence, accuse Opasny (on my talk-page) of "spreading rumour", "personal attacks"and "malicious" editing, flat-out state that Opasny has no right to comment. Moreover, you happily continue edit-warring after your block and somehow take umbrage at my wondering whether you have learned anything from a 31 hrs block and saying I don't give a "owls hoot" about whether or not you "reviewed consensus"? My impression is that you do not understand what WP:CONSENSUS entails, do not understand that the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus, think you WP:OWN the page in question, and seem convinced attack is the best defense (WP:BATTLEFIELD). Not a very promising sign. Kleuske (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is one of the more extreme cases of WP:BATTLEFIELD behaviour I've seen lately in part because it came on so fast and so aggressive with so little provocation. And despite us giving you nearly a day to do so you still haven't self-reverted your breach of WP:3RR from yesterday, which also suggests you haven't really learned from your block. As for our conflict, I came to the page as a neutral party, but it took very little time to see that Opansey was editing in good faith while you were not even attempting to assume good faith - your subsequent behaviour toward me, such as cherrypicking my statements to make false claims that you were basing edits off my suggestions, and edit-warring with me when I attempted to restore the page to its pre-conflict state, is what led to my dispute with you. Simonm223 (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Despite saying they'd learned their lesson Thor's Axe persists in making major revisions deleting reliable sources at Heqin today, editing against WP:BRD immediately. Here's a relevant dif. In addition they've shown serious WP:IDHT tendencies regarding their personal attacks and a lack of self awareness concerning their tendency to characterize any editor who is short with them as attacking them. I don't think they're interested in collaborative work at all. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

IP 51.7.229.221

This editor showed up today as an WP:SPA. That purpose was to remove the linkage from individual annual editions of American track and field championship articles to the article about the series. [19], [20], [21], [22] as examples. With an account history of just today, they cite wikipedia policy WP:BOLDAVOID as their excuse. I initiated a conversation to offer suggestions on alternatives to accomplish their sudden need for conformity without damaging the links. At least they conversed. Not only were resistive to the suggestions (and of course started by protecting their edits with reverting), but when I suggested their behavior was improper, they deleted the notice. While I find all of this offensive, it may not rise to the level of vandalism, but certainly is not collegial. I would like them to find a means to repair the damage they have done, unbolding being the easiest solution, and refrain from doing further damage. Trackinfo (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I certainly do not have a "single purpose". I simply noticed that most of the articles about US track and field championships were badly formatted, and so I set about fixing them. My purpose was obviously not to "remove the linkage" blah blah. The link this person is concerned about is still present in all of the articles. And yet they began pestering me, demanding that I make certain further edits. I say here, as I said to them: I made the articles better, and if they want to make them better still, great. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, isn't it? 51.7.229.221 (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous complaint and a boomerang WP:TROUT against Trackinfo may be necessary. A disagreement with a new user who appears to be following policy and editing in good-faith doesn't call for an ANI post. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo, The IP editor appears to be correct on almost all counts:

• They are not an SPA
• They are correct about WP:BOLDAVOID
• You, rather than the IP editor, were uncollegial from your first post on their talk page
• I would have deleted that obnoxious notice too.
• It does not even come close to "rising to the level of vandalism".
• Of a random sampling of similar articles for other sports, it appears they are all formatted generally the way the IP editor has done.
• The link to the general article is still included in the navigation template.
• You are free to add the link back into the lead or the infobox or something some other way if you want.

The only fault I can really find with the IP editor is reverting prior to coming to an agreement, but... the MOS is really clear on this, and they only reverted once. And, I suppose, they could have tried harder to work with Trackinfo to come up with an acceptable compromise wording, except when you treat an editor with disrespect, you can't really fault them for not meekly saying "Yes Sir". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo, your "suggestion" on their talk page that the IP editor's contributions were improper, was itself improper. There is no hint of vandalism here, since the edits bring the articles into compliance with the Manual of Style. IP addresses can change and perhaps this is a person who used another IP in the past. Or perhaps they read extensively before beginning to edit. That's what I did back in 2009. But this incident is definitely unworthy of an ANI report, and your behavior looks far worse than that of the person you are reporting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this sort of thing, but this is probably the BKFIP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That's possible, I suppose, but unless there is a better reason to suspect that than "an IP editor who is right about something and doesn't like being talked down to by an editor with an account", I don't think we should assume that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As often happens as I read Wikipedia articles, I noticed something -- in this case, a blue link in bold face -- that looked jarring and wrong, and so I wondered if there was a guideline about it. Turned out there was, MOS:BOLDAVOID, so I fixed up the problem I'd found. I was surprised that a user took such exception to this, and relieved when three other users found no fault in my editing. Now I'm surprised again to find myself traduced by a fourth user, who accuses me of long term abuse. The page they link to describes someone who targets biographies of living people, where they "remove the phrase "best known for" from an article with an edit summary of "rm pov"". Why would me fixing a style issue in articles about athletics events lead you to make this accusation? Why would anyone fixing a style issue ever be any kind of problem at all? 51.7.229.221 (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks more like a sockpuppet of Kumioko but as long as they're improving the encyclopedia and making good faith edits, I don't see why we need to bring out the tar and feathers. Particularly when they say insightful things like "Why would anyone fixing a style issue ever be any kind of problem at all?" which is a question I have asked myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Calton

User has been increasingly belligerent, the user has not assumed good faith, and appears in violation of Civility and Etiquette protocols. This includes bringing up an unrelated incident as part of the discussion on a talk page (which they justified as "how could I miss it?"), failure to discuss the situation at hand on the talk page for Anthony Bourdain, acting unilaterally before consensus was met, and a general animosity-ridden approach to both me and the situation at hand. The user's talk page seems to suggest that this sort of thing has happened with some regularity, and that the user has not addressed these concerns when others have reached out. I don't know if punishment is warranted, but I feel it necessary to alert an admin about this user's behavior.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You just caught a warning at WP:ANEW and now you're going to try to re-litigate it here? This is not gonna turn out well for you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe User:Calton's behavior warrants further inspection. I have vowed not to make any more edits, and have deferred to talk page consensus for the article. I have even apologized for a previous comment. But they have not done any of this, and like I said, I believe that their behavior is in violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I just came from that thread, where I saw you making WP:POINTY edits, casting aspersions on Calton, making demands and incorrectly accusing him of making "ad huminum" arguments, when Calton had never said anything about you at all. In short, I saw a lot of bad behavior on your part, and a bit of patience on Calton's part. I also saw you catch a warning for edit warring (which you deserved) from Drmies, right before you filed this. My advice to you is to erase this whole thread as well as your notification on Calton's talk page quickly, before an admin sees it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Does citing an unrelated incident from my talk page count as "never [saying] anything about [me] at all"...?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Does the advice of two seasoned editors mean anything to you? Drmies (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering that "citing an unrelated incident" consisted of Calton saying "And neither is edit-warring, as you found out in June" well before they actually reported you at AIV, I'm gonna go with "Yup." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

RE: "erase this whole thread as well as your notification on Calton's talk page quickly, before an admin sees "-- It is-- too late for that.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

RE: "I believe User:Calton's behavior warrants further inspection."-- that's been done. You might wish to withdraw this.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Drinkreader IP edits: time for a community ban?

• 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Drinkreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP has, over the past few days, removed material from articles and talk pages related to various mixed drinks. He has at various times claimed copyright violations and made vague threads of legal action (e.g., [23] [24]). His most recent claim today is that the discovery of a reference is intellectual property: we can't use a reference because he found it first ([25] [26]). Finally, he has threatened to continue his disruption across multiple IPs ([27]). His current actions show no intent of trying to collaboratively work through things; he appears intent on disruption and content removal.

It is apparent from contribution history that this IP has formerly edited as Drinkreader, so this pattern of behaviour has been occurring off and on for the past four years. I suggest that it is time for an indefinite community ban of this user, so that any further disruption can be reverted on sight with an immediate block of the IP. Is there support for this? —C.Fred (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this really what you consider collaboration? You have yet to even suggest wiki articles to where as i can make better corrective edits within wikipedias guidelines. All youve done is threaten to, and currently attempt to ban me. That doesnt sound like someone open to helping new editors contribute to the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP is claiming a copyright violation from a book they wrote in 1803? Or are they claiming that, having republished this quote in their own work, that they can then claim copyright of it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Funny you mention that, you wouldnt have half the references you have on all the cocktail pages of it werent for me. WHO DO YOU THINK THEY GOT THOSE REFERENCES FROM? So, even if you ban me, ive still contributed indirectly to dozens of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia appreciates your additions of references. Note this text below the edit window: "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." Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• support indefinite community ban of this user-block evasion, legal threats, combative attitude out of the gate. We'll get along fine without him.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

see also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Drinkreader--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• support indefinite community ban Saying "if i decidebto be disrruptive there isnt a (expletive removed) thing you can do about it.

[28] is about the most blatant possible admission that you should be banned. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• support indefinite community ban per norm Harassment of other users(and me), see my comment near the bottom of this section. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

<keyword>you</keyword> thats just it ivan, someone else, irrevocably agreed to release my contribution(s) without accrediteding sources, yes many original sources are present on the pages. Again, how do you think they got those? They just looked, when half the pages are far outdated and inaccurate by 500, and some 200 year old drinks are accurate to the year? How do you think thats possible? Hmmm.. somebody must have spent an awful lot of time researching to figire this out. Ive read so many cocktail amd recipe guides from 1522 (yes, in latin, in my hand) to today. Ive written over 250 articles on cocktails and cocktail history and ive written 72 books, and am editing my 73k. Im the real deal. If you saw your lifes work being plagiarized and destroyed and inaccurately presented wouldnt you be a wee bit upset?

If you said something about cocktails, i could not only tell you if its true or not, i could tell you the original source where you got that info. Its literally all i read and have read. Seriously, try me. Ill answer right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Also they have been harassing other users as well, Look at User_talk:Drinkreader, and at this edit to my talk page [[29]]Look at the bottom. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite community ban and suggests that the IP in question needs to learn what copyright actually covers. Protip: not shared secondary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• From this edit: "Fucking stealing ass assholes. Fuck you. You all act so fucking tough behind a keyboard. I will drop my location and we can see whats up."

Watch out, we got a badass over here. LOLOLOL I love an internet tough guy, but that's no reason to let someone who obviously can't even imagine what it means to act like a grown up edit here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, do they credit for someone else finding the same sources as them?Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why indef?

You dont owe me anything, but why assume things will always be the same? Do you not think circumstances change which inturn changes demenor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked (anon) for one year. That said, IP, if you think you have a legitimate concern about your own work being directly copied in Wikipedia (not just that we refer to it) then please contact WP:OTRS by emailing permissions-enwikimedia.org. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Persistant addition of unsourced information by User:Cavalry.charger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Cavalry.charger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been warned multiple times since they joined in 2016 about citing sources,

• friendly message on10 July 2016
• level 1 warning on 2 December 2017
• Level 2 warning on 21 March 2018
• 2nd level 2 warning on 11 June 2018
• another level 1 warning on 3 September 2018
• level 3 warning on 3 September 2018
• multiple level 4 warnings on 3 September 2018]

This was after they recreated Pasir Panjang Power Station despite my having draftified it as being unsourced here They complained about this here User_talk:Domdeparis#Chill_Bruh. and when I explained to them the need for sourcing they replied Forreels man people are free to edit and improve the page so let it be bruh. As they seemed to have no intention of abiding by WP:VERIFIABILITY I gave them a final warning and then checked out their previous edits and removed the unsourced additions giving them template overload to be sure the message had got through here They removed the level 4 warnings and disappeared for a couple of weeks but their first and only edit since was another unsourced addition here. I think administrator intervention is the only way to get through to them. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't seem hopeful, but the user hasn't edited in two weeks so there doesn't seem to be much that we can do at the moment. I suggest making a new report if they start editing again, so that we can try to address it while they're around. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As Ivanvector stated above, this account hasn't edited since September 19 - taking action now wouldn't be acceptable. A report should be filed if the user continues to add unsourced content and during the time that it is in progress and actively occurring, so that action can be taken and within compliance of Wikipedia's blocking policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Ivanvector: and @Oshwah: duly noted, I'll keep my beady little on their edits. cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Domdeparis - Cool deal. You know where to find me if you need me to take another look at this matter - don't be afraid to leave me a message if such is needed :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Oshwah I'll do that. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Blackgaia02

• Blackgaia02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous ANI discussion can be viewed here. For simplicity's sake, I shall refer to this user as BG02. I am very bothered by this user's uncollaborative behavior, frequent dismissal of rules, and generally rude behavior towards other users, even going as far as threatening another user to kill themselves. BG02 has previously acknowledged his behavioral problems in his last chance unblock request, yet over the years, he has continued the same type of behavior. Even his signature (talkpage if you dare) indicates that he is an inapproachable user. Please also note that BG02 has been sufficiently warned about his abusive behavior recently. Please view the following diffs:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

---

Note: There's plenty more instances of abusive behavior, but I do believe listing 10 diffs (mostly) from this year alone is enough is state my case.

Given that the user has already been given a final chance, and is showing no signs of improvement at all, he should be indef blocked per the agreement in his last chance unblock request. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• I feel about the same as Sk8erPrince as seen above. —JJB^ers 16:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Looking at these diffs, I also concur. Holy smokes.--Jorm (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• My first thought is: none of this is very recent. The user's last block and the "last chance" unblock discussion are from 2013. Only one of this list of diffs occurred in the last month, and that was itself pretty mild. The user does seem to have ongoing conduct issues especially within the past year, however. I'm just not sure there's anything for admins to do with this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right, BG02's last chance unblock discussion was in 2013. Yet, he broke the promise he made; I am pretty sure he understands that continued outbursts will result in being reblocked. Over the course of 5 years, BG02 has continued to belittle other users and ignore Wikipedia policy, noted in this diff. Additionally, Farix has warned BG02 one final time this year, which is gracious enough on Farix's part, since he could have just went ahead and reported BG02. From my perspective, it seems that BG02 has ignored the warning, and continued his spree of abusive behavior. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• You got off of an indefinite block less than two weeks ago, and this is what you get up to? --Calton | Talk 20:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to kindly remind you that BG02 is the subject here, and not me. Yes, you are right. I recently got off an indef block, but unlike BG02, I value second chances granted by administrators. Regardless of my personal history, it doesn't make my report any less valid. Problematic users are still problematic users, either way. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way Skater. Opening an ANI thread means your behavior is just as much in focus as theirs. I'm likewise not amused that you're diving head first into the drama boards two weeks after coming off of an indef. In the future I'd rather you go to an admin you trust and then them file it. --Tarage (talk)

I thought a user that is unblocked is to be treated just like any other contributor, unless they violate the terms of their unblock again. By your logic, Tarage, a user that was blocked before should not be reporting other users? I can't see why relaying my report to an admin is a better option, considering that I could compile my own report and post it myself. And to clarify, I have no prior interaction with BG02, but I find his abusive behavior very disturbing. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahem. I would like to say, as an admin, that I try with greater or lesser succes to not sound pushy, aggressive, or imperative. Try to be polite until the time for politeness has passed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we don't care much about 2013. So long ago, who remembers. At the risk of sounding imperious, Tarage is right in saying that when one brings a complaint here, their edits and behavior are very much of interest of the denizens of this place. They have been know to hurl boomerangs. Has anyone tried to reason with the editor in question?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence, Sk8erPrince, of you attempting to engage the user in discussion. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right. I have not attempted to engage with BG02, because I do not wish to be at the receiving end of his personal attacks. BG02 has displayed a pattern of abusively replying to other users and sending death threats to any contributor that he thinks is in his way, or proves to be an inconvenience to him (at least, in his perspective). I do not believe BG02 can be reasoned with because he has been warned one final time in June 2018, and since then, has made no improvements in editing civilly in a collaborative environment, which is what Wikipedia is. So to answer your question, other users have tried to reason with BG02, but to no avail.

Additionally, although the last chance unblock request dates back to 2013, the conditions of that unblock are still in effect. The diffs listed above shows that BG02 is in violation of those terms; 9 out of 10 of them are from this year. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to per-emptivly judge someone guilty of attacking you BEFORE they attack you. You always engage. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

His recent past interactions all point to a strong unwillingness to communicate civilly. I do not wish to subject myself to the possibility of being cussed out. It's like deliberately walking into a lion's den just to get bitten. Sure enough, that's just a possibility, but I have listed what he has done, and there's no denying nor excusing the excessive amount of abuse in the diffs. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please, if you're absolutely dead set on ignoring everything else I'm telling you, next time you find yourself in a need to report an editor, run it by an admin you trust first? I really don't want things to go south for you so quickly after you were unblocked. --Tarage (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Putting aside the fact that Sk8rPrince was only recently unblocked, that list of diffs is problematic, considering they go back quite a number of months this year. I'm not sure I agree with Ivanvector that there isn't much that admins can do with this. At a minimum, BG02 should get a reminder of the 2013 unblock agreement. A less merciful admin could certainly block them for violating those terms. Blackmane (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  I would go with a reminder and asking them what is going on first. Engagement, discussion and then maybe a block. Five years? I think blocking someone on an issue that has lain dormant for 5 years would be a bit trigger happy even for me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  I have gone with the reminder and inquiry. Blackgaia02 has not edited since 6 hours before this thread was started. The last time personal attacks were raised as an issue on his talk was in June. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Blackmane, I don't disagree with what you said, and I should have said "I don't see anything for admins to push buttons over". Reminding the user they have been told to keep it civil as a condition to remaining unblocked seems a perfectly reasonable admin response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 09:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, Ivanvector. I'm not good at this interpersonal stuff. On reflection, I see I may not be the only one. Probably the nature of the interface or something. FWIW, Blackgaia02 replied on my talk page. He's at a loss. Perhaps those of you who are good at interpersonal dynamics can help.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• I also agree with the basics of what Sk8erPrince has laid out above. Back in April I had a debate with this editor over the addition of unsourced content (which they repeatedly refused to source) and ended up warning them that I would have to report them here if they kept acting contrary to their unblock agreement. If the warning in June is any indication, apparently they chose to ignore that. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the diff that shows BG02's unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia policy. And this is the message GS has posted on BG02's talkpage. It is apparent that BG02 has been sufficiently warned about the possibility of a reblock. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps in light of the many comments above, you could stop posting in this thread? You made your report. Your participation here is controversial. We can handle it from here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• I hate the recent rules here, the whole "you need to put a source or else its nuked or removed" especially in anime articles. The fact people are always being so high and mighty by reverting said things such as genres added and such like removing HUGE chunk of characters in a page. Just because adding a picture not related to the article, genre not related to the article, character sections that regarded as cancerous by people like TheFarix and removing facts due to NOT SOURCED offends me, insults me, depresses me to the verge of losing hope to this site. So what, I should delete all the articles I made because all of them are violations of Wikipedia's "Anti Fandom Law"? Look, I am not happy and not in a good mood on actually stating opinions because I felt someone pointing a gun over my head if I add an "unreliable source". I don't have my freedom anymore over which is content and which is not :<.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  So, if I'm hearing you correctly, you don't believe that sourcing "rules" should apply to you, or the areas you're interested in?--Jorm (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• The "recent rules" you "hate" are merely a sign of the maturing of Wikipedia. For better or worse, we are now the English-speaking world's first stop for quick information on the Internet, so we now have a much heavier obligation to make certain that the facts we present are accurate. That means that more and more information is going to be required to be sourced, and if it's not sourced, it's going to be deleted. You can look back fondly on the good old days where one could play a bit fast and loose and slip in a bit of {factual) OR without sourcing it, but those days are unlikely to return: in fact, it's much more probable that sourcing requirements will get tighter as time goes on. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now, no new information will be allowed to be added to an article unless it is accompanied by a citation from a reliable source.
  We are never going to be a site that welcomes "fans" with open arms - Wikia exists for that. Perhaps you would be more comfortable there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

2011 Indian anti-corruption movement - return of LTA?

2011 Indian anti-corruption movement is currently in something of an edit war state. I dropped notes for Drmies and RegentsPark but they would appear to be offline. I am a little concerned that this might be the return of people associated with WP:LTA/IAC, which suggests reporting here.

I cannot revert at the article any more but have tried to communicate the person who is removing stuff through edit summaries, a note on their talk page and notes on the article talk (with ping). It probably need protection but there is a peculiarity, too: although it is ages since it was last protected, the remover has pretty much done the standard routine of clocking up a minimal number of edits at an innocuous article before moving over to this one, almost as if they thought it was still protected. Weird but help/advice would be appreciated. Should I even notify them of this thread, as I would usually do?

A word of warning: if it is the LTA then do not get involved unless you are preferred for a shitload of trouble, possibly including off-Wiki stuff. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Editor reverted and warned. If they edit the article again without gaining consensus on the talk page first, I'll block indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Floq. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

CU was warranted but delivered no results--not really surprising if it has been quiet for a while. Note that I have not previously, to my knowledge, run CU on IAC accounts, certainly not to the extent that I remember any of the details. One of the CUs with more experience in the matter might take this up--if it gets worse, I suppose. Thanks Sitush. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for running a check, Drmies. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, the Crusader of the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement "Anna Hazare" was almost back in action and was in the news lately, hence the rise in the interest of editors on that page. I don't believe for now that this is LTA yet, but more admin eyes would certainly be helpful. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• As I said at RP's talk page, I don't think this is the LTA either (and I tangled with that one a fair bit). There isn't the sort of aggressive legalese that was IAC's hallmark. This is just plain old axe-grinding. Vanamonde (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If edit warring, content disputes, and disruption like this have been an ongoing occurrence with this article, why not resolve the matter by applying extended confirmed protection to it? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, they (or someone with the same aim) is back there deleting swathes of stuff. I've alerted Floq but I don't think they're online. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Sitush has reverted my stable edits and keeps reverting when I restore to the last stable version (mine) instead of his prefered version. He also seems to think that IP editors ought not to edit at wikipedia. FWIW, the involved User:Ramesh8888 may have a WP:COI through sharing a surname with Anna Hazare. 103.30.142.163 (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not familiar with the LTA but have warned the recently active IP user (103.30.142.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 103.30.141.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), and will block/protect if the disruption and aggressive conduct continues. Abecedare (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Which it has, Abecedare. I've semi'd the article for a month. If the IP-hopper continues to harass Sitush, any admin who sees it will hopefully block. The range is 103.30.140.0/22, so far. Bishonen | talk 10:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

Whitewashing and WP:SPA on Salt Bae article

Blitzcream has been performing whitewash edits on the Salt Bae since their account was created. The Blitzcream account was created shortly after an incident regarding "Salt Bae" and Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro. Over 60% (25/41) of the edits made by Blitzcream, which is most likely WP:SPA when WP:DUCK is applied, involve "Salt Bae" or related discussions. The user only attempted to diverge from the article and make other edits once WP:SPA was brought to their attention (see diffs: my tag regarding possible WP:SPA and some of the first edits made by Blitzcream involving an article other than "Salt Bae"). The user Blitzcream also seems experienced with Wikipedia policies regarding edit conflicts, raising questions on whether they have specialized in contorversial articles in the past.

Their first edit reverted by addition of content regarding the incident. Blitzcream's first edit falsely stated in their edit summary that a source did not contain criticism against "Salt Bae". To further support the content, an additional source was added regarding the incident and it was once again reverted by Blitzcream, with the user pushing to delay the addition of content by creating an unnecessary talk page discussion. I explained that my edits did not mention so-called "political displays" (which was one of the main reasons Blitzcream reverted) and that the content only contained the responses of individuals provided by reliable sources. I attempted to add the content once more in the most NPOV wording I could think of in order to avoid further conflict. This, of course, was reverted by Blitzcream. After continuous reverts, I continued to try and discuss how wording could be improved without censoring content. After that and other options, Blitzcream again falsely stated that "Salt Bae" did not receive criticism in the sources. I explained to Blitzcream that I attempted to make the wording suitable for them, but the reverts continued. After the constant whitewashing and reverts, I left a final message clearly showing the content of the sources while using direct quotes and warned them to cease their disruptive edits. I added the information back to the article with multiple sources and updated details. This was reverted. I added the information again with simple, NPOV wording to serve as a middle ground and to end the conflict. This was reverted.

So this is why I have decided to direct this conflict here. I have dealt with WP:SPA and WP:COI users before, especially on the Smartmatic article, and would be grateful for any help as this is unecessarily stressful and I do not wish to edit in conflict as it only wastes time that can be spent improving Wikipedia. Thank you for any feedback and I will make improvements where they are needed.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I am struck by the amount of effort being put into arguing if a guy who puts salt on meat is a communist or not. That is all. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh. Sorry. I know you have 12k edits to Blitzcream's 40, but believe it or not, I'm not seeing it. For example, you're inserting the claim that "Gökçe has ... been criticized for his political displays": the examples given in the article, and by extension, the sources, are referring to miscellaneous instances of criticism on social media. I mean, that's not typically something that's considered to be encyclopedic. At least, it's debatable whether and how such things should be included in an article; a reasonable content dispute ripe for WP:DR. What else has he done? Slightly de-emphasize classifications of "Kurds" in favor of actual nationalities? Really not seeing this.  Swarm  talk  07:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: That is the thing. The content added is not stating that Gökçe is being criticized for his "political displays". It is stating that he was criticized for serving a luxury meal to the president of hungry nation. Whether or not that is a "political display" is up for interpretation. I have asked for suggestions of wording that would be more NPOV and avoid political issues, but the only action that Blitzcream has taken is reverting and censoring the content. As the article currently stands, it is a half-truth saying that only Maduro was criticized when Gökçe was also denounced for his actions as well.

Regarding the edits surrounding the Kurdish background, those were only minor edits, though Blitzcream still maintained an antagonistic approach towards other users as well. Blitzcream described edits by Lkasso1 (who is just as new as Blitzcream) as being ""Turkish/Kurdish nationalism bullshit". Their behavior makes me think that they are not here to build an encyclopedia.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I looked through the reverts at Salt Bae, and other than maybe reminding Blitzcream about edit warring to watch their reverts, I don't see much here that's actionable nor do I see anything that constitutes a gross violation of policy that warrants action here and now... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thank you for taking time to look this over and providing feedback.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

ZiaLater - Of course; always happy to help :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• This looks like a collision between an internet-famous person (where virtually all sources are likely to be hyperbole), WP:BLP, and a national environment where virtually nothing is free of some kind of political overtones. Reminding people to keep tot he talk page until there is consensus seems like the way forward here. Of course, I would nuke the article. Internet-famous is synonymous with not-famous in my view, but I recognise I ma in a minority there. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Marcos FTO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm reporting, for genre warring, Marcos FTO (contributions)

• 21 September 2018
• 1 October 2018
• 2 October 2018
• 2 October 2018
• 2 October 2018

He has been warned four or five times the past few months about making unsourced changes to the genre field of the infobox, but his edits since the final warning in September appear to have often been the same kind of changes, when he has been active. The above are just a few recent examples. Dan56 (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes ma'am. Blocked for a little while. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm male lol Dan56 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Genres AGAIN??? EEng 05:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Should we delete genres as well? Blackmane (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppets of User:Livioandronico2013

On Commons, we have discovered that User:Livioandronico2013 has been abusing multiple accounts to (a) evade their indef block [since November 2017] and (b) to cheat at Featured Picture Candidates for several years in over 300 nominations. The other accounts are User:Σπάρτακος and User:Architas which are now also blocked on Commons. Earlier this year, Livioandronico2013 used their Wikipedia account to attack me on Wikipedia. See this AN/I post and was blocked here for a week. You might want to investigate if these accounts have been used to cheat or disrupt Wikipedia and consider blocking some or all of them. -- Colin°^Talk 08:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Livioandronico2013 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Σπάρτακος (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Architas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The first account is indef-blocked on Commons and the other two are checkuser-blocked, also on Commons. They are not blocked on enwiki, and they have zero page overlaps outside of article space and the few articles they have edited in common are only a handful on each, and separated by years; that is to say they have not "cheated" in any discussions. The only technical violation of policy that I see here is that Architas edited once while Livioandronico2013 was blocked back in May, but I personally don't think that's worth actioning now. At best, maybe a one-account restriction is in order here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 09:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• I've left a note at WT:FPC regarding this matter. I'll keep an eye out for socks. MER-C 20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Hipeople1988 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) turned up today on Commons just to let everyone know they had moved on from secretly cheating to being obviously disruptive. Enforcing one-account on WP would seem to be wise. -- Colin°^Talk 20:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

COI SPA editor making retaliatory mass deletions from other articles because they can't get their way on the COI article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Luluplatz (talk · contribs)

Luluplatz is an SPA (and an obvious COI) on Cheryl Studer, and has been edit warring on the article for the past 1.5 years. When uncited material was removed from the article, s/he started making mass deletions on other opera singer articles in retaliation, and is doing so now. I'm reporting this now before it gets out of hand. The editor needs to be blocked before the deletion spree goes on much longer. I'm sorry I don't have time for diffs -- please just check the contribs for the moment. Softlavender (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

By their own admission, these edits are WP:POINTy, thus disruptive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Further info: The Cheryl Studer article has been mainly written, mostly without citations, by three obvious COI SPAs, who have edit-warred to preserve their edits. The editors in question are:

• Gcdea (talk · contribs) (multiple usertalk warnings about the article)
• Goustaff (talk · contribs) (blocked for behavior at the article)
• Luluplatz (talk · contribs) (edit warring on the article for the past 1.5 years)

The accounts may all be the same editor, as there is a break of about 1.5 years between the stop of one account and the start of the next. Luluplatz, the latest SPA, has been fighting against the removal of uncited material which has been tagged and left uncited for years. They have been given multiple lengthy explanations about the need for citations, but they don't listen, and instead they edit war, complain endlessly on various talkpages, and now are engaging in mass deletions from a variety of unrelated opera-singer articles. Softlavender (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone object if I hand them an ultimatum? They seem to have stopped for now.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we may need to weigh options. Their behavior for the past 1.5 years has been exhaustingly disruptive. They clearly are not WP:HERE. They may need a topic ban from Cheryl Studer and/or from opera singers in general. I would like to hear from the editors who have been forced to deal with them: Wehwalt, Voceditenore, Gerda Arendt, Michael Bednarek, DMacks, Ssilvers, for starters. Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I went to revert, but Softlavender beat me to it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Remind me what article I dealt with them on.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: [30]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think it was unusual at the time. We get similar disputes on the R&H musical articles. I didn't research the editor's contributions or anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

How about "As I stated before, you act as an arbitrary and capricious arbiter around here. Go ahead, enjoy your little kingdom. And please never, ever remove any edits I may make elsewhere on Wikipedia or you will be reported for harassment and abuse" [31]? -- Softlavender (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Taking offense would be descending to their level. Since I often revert unsourced changes, it's not the first time someone has said something like that to me. I tend to let it pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This latest deletion spree involving 7 articles is incredibly disruptive, and frankly, I'm not holding out a lot of hope that this editor will change. They indulge in both rapid-fire and slow edit-warring and are more than likely to be back here in a few weeks. Their standard response to those dealing with problems in their editing (text or images) is to accuse them of "editorial abuse" or being "arbitrary and capricious", or both, e.g. [32] [33], [34], [35]. They also edit-warred at Renée Fleming to insert a confected controversy with the edit summary on the first revert "Singer made false, ignorant, misleading statement thus warranting correction". Needless to say, the singer's "ignorance" concerned a role that Cheryl Studer had sung before Fleming. When a possible COI with Studer was brought up at Talk:Renée Fleming, they said, amongst other things, "I don't owe you any justifications for how I choose to participate on Wikipedia or on what topic(s) of personal interest. Are we clear?" UGH! I'm in favour of Dlohcierekim's ultimatum and a prompt indef block if it happens even once after that final warning. Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block. This is a deliberately disruptive editor who does not even pretend to listen to advice or policies, and is focused only one goal: to promote Cheryl Studer, without citations. 1.5 years of this nonsense is enough. Softlavender (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block. As Softlavender says, this user has embarked on a path of vandalism to many articles as they pitch a hissy fit about not getting their way on Cheryl Studer. They need to step off until such time as they bother to learn some of the core principles of the encyclopedia and promise to follow them.Jacona (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• By the way, still edit-warring; reported just now at ANEW: [36]. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  I've blocked the account for 24 hours while this is discussed. Fish+Karate 14:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  And Dlohcierekim has overridden my block with a 60 hour block. Either way, the important thing is the user is blocked to prevent further disruption. Fish+Karate 14:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) <<dammit. I did not see F ad K blocked>>> I have temporarily blocked in light of non response to the ANI notification or my warning on their talk page with resumption of edit warring after both notices. Feel free to unblock if so inclined.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  back to 24 hours.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, but they'll be back with more disruption! They promised, after they replaced their still uncited laundry list into the article and it was reverted; see their new parting shot on the talkpage of the article: [37] "I am not going away either". -- Softlavender (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef btw, the link Softlavender supplied just above is enough. Indefinite does not mean infinite and if the user can recognise that they're being problematic then the block can be lifted. Until then, they can stay blocked and we can all get back to our tedious and unnecessary exercises in abject hypocrisy. Fish+Karate 15:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Hell, I need all the exercise I can get. And tedium as well.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• There's no point in leaving this open any longer; individual admins block disruptive editors like this with no discussion all the time. Blocked indef, we'll see if a believable and productive unblock request is forthcoming. Or, if instead they decide to keep this up, let an admin know if a new SPA starts editing that article and point them to this discussion, and we'll see if we can nip this in the bud next time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block Per above discussion. --RAF910 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Indef. Dlohcierekim's WP:AGF is a source fo great credit, but speaking as a cynical old bastard I think this user is not here to improve the encyclopaedia, but instead to make money from others' efforts. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undisclosed paid editing by User:Hasive

Hello, I suspect that Hasive­ has been paid to edit on wikipedia (without disclosing these payments previously).

The Bengali Wikipedia community has recently obtained evidence that Hasive was paid BDT 1.5 million (about $18,000) by the government of Bangladesh to write Wikipedia articles about every Bangladeshi parliamentarian (source from gov site 1, 2). For two years he has been writing these articles without informing the community about the payments. He has only recently admitted to this after being confronted about it (on Bengali Wikipedia's mailing list and village pump). Yet he is claiming, as an excuse for not informing the community there, that this was merely a personal project of his.

I suspect, based on the sorts of edits he has been making on the English Wikipedia, that his work here is ­also being treated as part of his work writing articles on Bengali Wikipedia about parliamentarians.

This suspicion of mine has become stronger due to a comment of his on the Bengali Wikipedia village pump; he has stated "Aside from parliamentarians, information about every parliamentary constituency is being regularly updated on Wikipedia. This data has also been, and is being, added alongside Wikipedia to 'Wikidata', one of its sister projects".

At present the Bengali Wikipedia community is decided to revoke his admin rights there and indefinitely ban him there. He subsequently resigned from the board of Wikimedia Bangladesh and his membership of Wikimedia Bangladesh has also been canceled by the board over this. Link: https://bd.wikimedia.org/s/­1f2

I thus request that the English Wikipedia community begin to investigate this matter.

• B­engali Wikipedia discussion

source from gov site:

1. page 22, table 9 (Archive)

2.page 3, table 14 (Archive) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

So, nobody is touching this. Can we discuss stuff disclosed by Hasive at bn-WP in en-WP?

I did look at their edits and it matches what was said about their edits there.

BLP violation: unsourced content PROMO content. COPYVIO from source added in next diff. (already has been revdelled)

BLP violation unsourced PROMO content.

diff and

this diff is copy/pasted from the source which is page 8 of the word document in bengali hosted here at the bengali government PR office. (the word document is a series of bios of members of the bangladeshi government; i copied it into google translate). I sorta suspect it was written by Hasive as part of the project discussed at bn-WP, but cannot of course know).

This person's editing is horrible.

He is, happily, not an admin in en-WP. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If true then they should surely be globally banned, which would mean getting the WMF involved. Some sort of strong message has to be sent out when people are conducting UPE across multiple language projects. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. While we can 86 him from here, it won't do anything for Bengali Wikipedia; this needs to be taken up at Meta at some point. I still say we have cause enough to indef him from en.wp right here and right now before we take that step, if he's continuing to edit. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: The user has already been indef-blocked and desysopped on bnwiki, as Aftab stated, so those actions directly affecting him on that wiki have already taken place. There is an ongoing effort to check all articles he created/improved on bnwiki pertaining to certain groups of people for copyvios, with a separate but related effort (search for "Appointment with Editor of Prothom Alo" on that page) to see if a newspaper would be willing to license certain articles, from which lots of copyvios on bnwiki are derived, under CC-BY-SA. @আফতাবুজ্জামান: At some point you will need to inform Meta, as Jeremy suggests, and possibly Wikidata as well about this situation. mahir256 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• I ran into this editor in 2017, when they created Foundation for Research on Educational Planning and Development, which was speedily deleted as a copyright infringement. I then had to revert their additions to Zunaid Ahmed Palak, which at the time was one of the most unambiguously promotional puff pieces I’d come across on Wikipedia. (Apology for no diff; I’m on mobile, but look through the history beginning in April 2017.) All of this user’s substantive contributions are going to have to be checked carefully. /wiae /tlk 12:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers Accusations of harassment

72bikers has "banned" a number of users from their talk page, asking them not to post warnings of any sort. An ANI discussion in May determined that "banned" editors may post a single warning per incident on 72bikers' talk page. However, they have continued to accuse editors who do so of harassment, violating policy and "lacking the ability to judge what is a actual violation". Recent examples are [38] [39]. I would ask that 72bikers either substantiate these claims of harassment or stop making these accusations. I would certainly welcome any examination of my own behavior, as I feel that this (which triggered an accusation of violating policy and "optics of harassment") is perfectly legitimate and acceptable warning. –dlthewave ☎ 20:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The question here is why do people feel that they need to post warnings on their page? If they feel they have to then there's obviously a reason and that should be looked into as more import than 72biker's responses. Is there another behavioural issue here? Canterbury Tail talk 21:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave - Yes, 72bikers can ask you not to post on their user talk page - and yes, it's generally expected that the user's wish is honored when such a request is given. We can't force a user to rescind their request for other editors to leave their user talk page alone, nor can we force a user to rescind accusations of harassment. If the user doesn't want you to communicate concerns, warnings, violations of policy, etc. directly to them first - fine. Taking concerns directly to the editor is a courteous thing to do, and if he doesn't want that, it's his prerogative. Just do what the guidelines state, which is to bring it to an administrator or admin noticeboard to have handled. If the only concern you're raising here is regarding 72bikers accusations and requests for others to not edit his talk page, there's not much we can do. Aside from this, are there other concerns that you need to discuss here regarding this user? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel that I've been following the consensus from the previous ANI discussion linked above, yet 72Bikers continues to accuse me of harassment and policy violations not just once but every time I post a legitimate warning. I feel that these accusations are inappropriate, unfounded and distracting and I would like 72Bikers to stop making them per WP:ASPERSIONS. Since I'm not supposed to post this at their talk page, I am asking for help here. –dlthewave ☎ 22:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I have idea. How about you stop editing his talk page. Also, since your fully aware of and took part in the previous discussion regarding his talk page, this appears to be an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP.--RAF910 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith and not respond in a sarcastic tone, please. It's not going to help the user nor will it resolve his frustrations. We need to be patient, listen, and try and help as much as we can if possible. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X 2 Dlthewave - I would do your best just to ignore the accusations and don't let them get to your emotions, and to just leave the user's talk page alone if his responses bother you. If you know that you're doing the right thing and in good faith, you're addressing legitimate issues, and doing your best to follow policy and what was decided in the last ANI discussion, it shouldn't bother you if he throws "harassment" at you and what-not. He's not the user who will ultimately decide what constitutes harassment or not. If the user chooses not to take your warnings to heart, then he's the one whose losing out - not you. That being said, is this user continuing to repeatedly make the same edits in violation of policy that you warned the user about? Is there something outside of the harassment accusations that should be discussed regarding this user's edits or compliance with policy? This is what we can help you with, and much more so than accusations being thrown around :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding those last questions, see here. That's just the latest incident in a long list. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would point out what editor Dlthewave said is not entirely correct. Its my understanding that only legitimate "required notices" such as for this noticeboard discussion be placed on a editors talk page and only once. How is a warning that is not a actual policy violation and only in the opinion of the warning editor legitimate. I have ask this editor numerous times politely to not post on my talk page as to the two policies WP:HUSH and WP:NOBAN. I believe if this editor had legitimate cause he would have simple went to a noticeboard such as here the have me sanctioned. but it would seem even there view of actual policy violation flawed. I would also point out I did not directly say he was harassing me but simply the optic of what he was doing, given the history, might be perceived as such, as the result of this confirmed.

I would also point out this editor not very long ago started a discussion to do away with the policies that allowed a editor to requet that other do not post on there talk page. But not even one of the admins thought that was a good idea.

@Oshwah:, @Canterbury Tail:, as to whether or not I am being harassed, I would like to bring to attention there has just been another noticeboard complaint filed, that also appear to be fruitless [40]. Claiming he would not go to noticeboard if he could post warnings on my talk page. -72bikers (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers: "Its my understanding that only legitimate "required notices" such as for this noticeboard discussion be placed on a editors talk page and only once." Who told you that? I provided a link to an ANI consensus that says otherwise. –dlthewave ☎ 01:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

72bikers - I understand that the warnings left by other editors can be annoying and perhaps even aggravating, but the purpose behind such notifications is to allow editors who have concerns regarding possible issues that you're involved with to bring them directly to you so that it can be resolved if the concerns are correct, or explained and understood by the messenger if the concerns are wrong. I wouldn't consider such messages left in good faith an annoyance or an attempt to harass you, but a courteous thing to do before getting more users and administrators involved with the matter. If Dlthewave's warnings and concerns are incorrect, you should be able to respond and explain in a calm and civil manner why they're incorrect so that you're both at the same level of understanding and that things are indeed okay. If you respond by pushing those users away from your talk page and by telling them to stop editing it and leave you alone, you're only going to cause more frustration upon yourself if such concerns are legitimate and address real issues that need to be resolved. You mentioned that Dlthewave Waleswatcher made a report to AN3 that you believe is fruitless and without merit. Had you allowed Dlthewave to voice concerns regarding edit warring to you directly first (assuming that it's incorrect), you could have explained the discrepancy and resolved the matter right then and there. Because you've robbed yourself of allowing others to communicate with you directly by telling them to not edit your user talk page, you're now seeing a direct consequence of this action - they're going to report the matter(s) to the appropriate noticeboard(s) and you're going to have to deal with explaining things on those reports when asked about them. Compared to doing that and with all this in mind, doesn't it seem easier for everybody (including yourself) if you instead maintained an open communication policy on your talk page and you welcomed users to voice concerns and leave warnings so that you can discuss them peacefully before it becomes 'escalated' to a noticeboard? How you manage your user talk page and who can post messages and warnings to them is ultimately up to you - I obviously can't force you to do anything. I just want to help you to understand that you're making things harder on yourself in the long-term and in the end by keeping people who leave you warnings off your user talk page, and that being open, civil, and receptive to warnings, concerns, and criticism is the best way to handle such things and is ultimately much more easier on yourself :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Oshwah for explaining it better than I could. It was actually Waleswatcher who filed the AN3 report, but they were similarly banned by 72bikers and unable to discuss the issues before escalating. –dlthewave ☎ 03:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave - Ah, my bad. I thought you were the creator of that AN3 report by mistake - please accept my apologies. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I wish it was that simple Oshwah, I truly due. But when things like this and much more [41] and [42] and this [43] in reference of me, its hard to see good intentions. When a editor with a adversarial view tries to chastise you and only post warnings if they did not have good enough proof to actually have you sanctioned, its hard to see the assumption of good faith. look I simply requested like many times before for him to post on my page, and I simply mentioned the optics of his actions and he came here to have me sanctioned. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to such thing, as the admins responding to Dlthewave request to do away with the policies that I presented with my request stated without it would swamp them with mostly trivial matter. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Two of those are not on your talk page. Nor are they about any users posting here (or at the edit war thread). Now I( asked you directly on my talk page, and I am asking you here, would you rather have warnings posted on your talk page or just be reported without warning when you might have breached policy? Because what you are not going to have is to be allowed to breach policy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I regularly question whether 72bikers is here to build an encyclopedia - but this is an old issue. As per several previous trips to AN/I over this issue, users are free to issue standard statements and warnings on 72's page. 72 is free to delete those afterward and they should not be reinserted. 72 is free to ask users not to post more on that topic but users are free to raise new issues with 72 in the future even if he's "banned" them. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I do believe 72bikers is here to build an encyclopedia. What I find is 72bikers does a poor job of articulating legitimate concerns. I don't agree with the idea that we should just ban people from our talk pages left and right. I agree with others here that in general its not a good idea to blanket ban people from out talk pages. But once such a prohibition has been requested it should be respected. I think 72bikers should do the following:

1. When posting to article talk pages, Be bright, be brief! Write out what you want to say, proof read it then cut the text in half (I don't always practice what I preach...).
2. Don't beat the horse (alive or dead). Sometimes people don't answer the questions we ask. You can't force them to. Consider that your audience isn't always the person who disagrees (and may, in good faith, never agree). Use a coherent argument to convince the undecided or new to the discussion (again, bright and brief really helps).
3. Discuss first, edit last. This one applies to other editors as well. If a section of content is the subject of a current talk page disagreement, don't change it! Propose changes on the talk page. Try to resist the urge to revert (again my practice and preaching aren't fully coherent). When we are in a consensus gridlock trying to figure out how to balance this or that, it doesn't help when someone adds some new content without proposing the edit first. It almost certainly will result in a number of article changes/reversions and editor frustration. Just propose it first!

These suggestions apply to myself and other editors as well. Springee (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The truth is that, since I've got back from my wikibreak, I've seen more WP:3RR and WP:AN/I threads opened about 72bikers than any other editor I've interacted with. They've had plenty of warnings regarding their comportment, with the talk page issue being one of them. And while many of those cases have been marginal, 72 has pulled 2 blocks in 2018 for edit warring and yet continues to push the line of EW behaviour often, while remaining disinclined to discuss their behaviour on their own user talk page - which inevitably spills out into the boards with additional marginal edit warring accusations, and complaints to AN/I. So yeah, there's some WP:NOTHERE behaviour going on. Whether admins consider it severe enough to be actionable is another issue, but what it comes down to is that 72bikers is often a obstruction to resolving challenging and fraught content disputes rather than a participant. And that's a problem. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: From where I sit, 72bikers' pattern of behavior clearly fits multiple elements of WP:NOTHERE: battleground behavior (banning users from their talk page, accusing them of harassment, arguing tooth and nail over just about every edit from an editor they disagree with), repeated warnings and blocks, little interest in collaboration (even with like-minded editors, from what I've seen), and disruptive edits.

For a recent example of that last, when dlthewave tried to get some input on the issues at AR-15 style rifle, 72bikers posted multiple WP:TEXTWALLs like this, this, and this that have clogged the discussion to the point it's almost impossible to read (especially for anyone new to this that might actually have provided a fresh perspective). Those WOTs are often riddled with typos to the point they're hard to parse, and more importantly they are very long and usually miss the point under discussion. I don't know to what degree that's intentional, but it's certainly disruptive. Then there's the kneejerk reverts on anything they disagree with (see here for the latest of that, including a revert of my removal of a duplicate reference), usually followed by more walls of text on the talk page.

Since multiple warnings and short blocks don't seem to have helped, it seems to me a longer block or topic ban might be called for. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of dragging different accusations into an ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WW, this seems like a self serving position on your part. Some of the edits in question were reversions of material that you added in a way that, while not a bright line violation, were not helpful. For example, here [[44]] you add material to a section that is an area of active disagreement. You didn't propose the material or change first. You should have known better given your involvement in the on going discussions. Here you revert material that 72bikers added a while back and that had been stable [[45]]. I can see how an editor might feel you were targeting their work since you didn't discuss this removal first (discussion added after removal [[46]]). If we go a ways back here you are saying that WP:ONUS to remove new content is on the editor who wishes to remove rather than the editor who is doing the adding (the opposite is true) [[47]]. 72bikers generally isn't initiating the controversial changes, you have initiated several. It creates a certain amount of baiting a trap by antagonizing targeting some of his edits and then ignoring consensus when adding edits that can't reasonably assume wouldn't be controversial. Springee (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And your comment seems equally self-serving on your part, doesn't it? As seems to be typical for you, your comment is riddled with falsehoods and misrepresentations (see this for a particularly egregious recent example of such misplaced accusations). But this really isn't about me, or you, so I'll not respond further. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's be fair; most people fall for a joe-jobber once before they notice the pattern of behaviour. After all, most people don't have checkuser authority. I wouldn't lean on this too hard as any sort of blemish on Springee's record. They walked back the complaint immediately upon being told it was a joe-jobber and while they and I may not often see eye to eye, they're a decent editor and, unlike 72bikers, I wouldn't expect to see them up before AN/I or 3RR as they understand and adhere to Wikipedia norms well. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Offensive edit summary

Yep, diff.

See the rest of Special:Contributions/Loricarey. This person and a sock (filed at SPI) are reverting removals of breitbart.com that were done pursuant to WP:BREITBART. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Goooo bye bye. Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail - Thank you for blocking the user - you beat me to it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No way I'm defending the person's edit summaries or claims made (that alone is banable offenses), but I do have concerns that the material that was removed that they reverted met the RSOPINION allowances that the Breitbart closure allowed for, with those removing the BB links and materials sourced to them perhaps cutting off more than the closure allowed form. I've already discussed w/ Jytdog related to the removal on the diff above on that talk page, and while there's a valid point on UNDUE issues, that should be a point of discussion before removal; the BREITBART closure was not allowance to remove any BB link, only those that were being used to source factual material (or least, factual material in WP's voice). Wumbolo made up User:Wumbolo/Breitbart as opinion on the 25th after the closure to track seemingly valid uses of BB under RSOPINION, and some of the reverts of this user are based on removals of BB after this list was made. Masem (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Masem - I don't see an issue with restoring or fixing such material if what was removed should be kept. Obviously, the concerns and decision behind blocking the reported user was due to their incivility and personal attacks added to their edit summaries. I didn't consider the content itself when looking into the matter; just the edit summaries that were left. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Masem, *sigh*. Sorry, we're talking about a longterm harasser here who makes violent and obscene threats all over the place, may well have thousands of already blocked socks, and you want to make some point about how to keep more Breitbart in our articles? Does Breitbart need a hug? If this harasser has valid points to make, why don't you discuss it with them. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have revdeleted the edit summary in question and changed this section's header. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano - Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Damn, we just discussed doing this at the weekly Far-Left Pedophiles of Wikipedia (FLPOW) meeting, and apparently, Jytdog beat us to the punch. Oh well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Found another one: Sagobony1. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Salvio giuliano (thank you). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

And talk page access removed/edit deleted. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• the current header is just so dull. :( But thanks for the swift mop-wielding! Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• another sock: Special:Contributions/Puncharyan Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Another: Awlsbloch –dlthewave ☎ 23:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the incitement to violence here removal of talk page access might be in order. MarnetteD|Talk 00:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

While not as egregious this should be looked at as well. MarnetteD|Talk 00:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

MarnetteD - I've revoked talk page access from both users and redacted the revisions (WP:DENY). Thanks for the heads up :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Oshwah. MarnetteD|Talk 01:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

MarnetteD - You bet :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Also Steplush –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  Blocked by Zzuuzz--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• + Sizerhurts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• + Scentgotta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not a big surprise given the website in question. This may need a rangeblock in the end. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This is JarlaxleArtemis, hopping around on open proxies. A range block is not going to be effective. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeeeup, I figured :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding:

• Zionist and Proud18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Novadock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hersbrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I assume someone will sweep these up at some point?

i have blacklisted breitbart.com for now, which should prevent further reverts. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Briancua

On 22 August in an ANI brought against me by User:Briancua I committed to make an effort to better adhere to conduct policies. Since then I have tried extra hard to be constructive, engaged, civil, and collaborative with all editors. I like to think I have always done this but accept that my performance (while not specifically violating any of the rules) had room for improvement. I didn't think the ANI brought against me by BrianCUA was fair as it seemed to be a deliberate attempt to have me banned from the site because I have consistently bought a degree of challenge to BrianCUA's edits. Nevertheless I accepted the ANI (despite long service) and tried to move on. However, regrettably I feel that while I have made an effort to improve, BrianCUA has not. As an editor they seem to demonstrate a bias towards conservative Catholicism - this can be seen by glancing at the totality of edits which are always aimed at reinforcing a overly-positive perspective both on Catholic teaching as well as organisations relating to the Church (eg the Knights of Columbus. To the extent that article are starting to look skewed and biased. I have set out some examples below. These are by no means exhaustive. I apologise in advance for the length of this but am trying to be as conscientious as I can. I've tried to avoid this turning into a petty tit-for-tat against me and BrianCUA (and you'll see that concerns have been voiced by other established editors) - it's just that I have a genuine concern that the spirit of Wikipedia is not being abided by and I'd just like someone to check if there is an issue. If it's the case that I've been over-cautious then I will accept that. Thank you again for your time.

• Over-turned all edits (WP:EDITWARRING) relating to Knights of Columbus and the Pledge of Allegiance to imply bigger role for the knights than the sources suggest (WP:PEACOCK). No justification given and no attempt to engage with the discussion initiated on the talk-page:

[[48]] Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#Pledge of Allegiance

• I added material on Cardinal Arinze and the rainbow sash and then removed my own material as I didn't think it was appropriate to the article. BrianCua restored the material and has argued that I am not allowed to remove it unless I achieve consensus (no other editor has expressed a view so "consensus" in this case means permission by BrianCua. Followed up with threats on my talk page to have me "banned" if I continued to pursue this point. Additionally the fact that another editor has suggested the stressing of "unity" is tendentious editing:

Talk:History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality#Rainbow sash User talk:Contaldo80#Disputed edits and behavior

• Failure to retain WP:CIVILITY when collaborating with other editors. Repeated use of sarcasm, for example "I didn't make a mistake. I copied directly from the source. Again, remember that just because the phrase is written in italics, or in quotation marks, or in Sanskrit somewhere else, doesn't mean we do it here."

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#First usage of Culture of Life

• Repeated rejection of attempts by other editors (Contaldo80, Aquillon, TronVillain) to find a compromise solution in relation to the term "culture of life" in favour of a tendentious approach that asserts usage by the Catholic church is widely understood and accepted:

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#RFC on quotation marks

• Tendentious editing on Catholic Church and homosexuality to give WP:UNDUE prominence in the lead (and main article) to gay rights activists disrupting Catholic masses - opposing the concerns of other editors (including Roscelese). Even though incidences of this were limited and protesting against communion was actually only ever done globally once according to sources cited:

Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality#Desecrating

• Concerns raised by a number of editors (including Steeletrap, Johnpfmcguire and Contaldo80) at the repeated "playing of the system" (ie circular citation of Wikipedia rules to frustrate attempts by other editors to make progress on article) which is designed to reinforce tendentious editing relating to a social conservative/ conservative Catholic perspective (especially relating to the issue of homosexuality). Possessive behavior (and inconsistent application of guidance) in relation to articles - which rejects any attempts by other editors to make changes that are seen as a threat to the conservative catholic viewpoint:

Talk:Knights of Columbus#Removal of KoC political activism in the lede Talk:Knights of Columbus#Lead section

• Citing a source that has subsequently been demonstrated as having made a fundamental error in relation to dating, raising concerns around WP:RS. Continuing to insist on using that source without provide a fuller quotation to reassure that the remainder of the material is reliable, despite the fact that other editors have supported this approach as a way forward.

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#RFC on quotation marks#First usage of Culture of Life

• Insisting that the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality retains a substantive section in the main article setting out in detail the teaching of the catholic church on homosexuality despite arguments that this unnecessarily duplicates material in other articles, and cherry-picks phrases such as "All people, including those that are LGBT, "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" which more than one editor have agreed is WP:UNDUE. Additionally rejecting solutions aimed at compromise and a desire to "play the system" (arguing that most people wouldn't know the catholic church dislikes homosexuality and therefore a sentence in the lead which is not a commonly accepted fact needs to have substantive supporting material in the main body):

Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality

• Admitting that they were WP:HOUNDING me to visit a page not previously visited to specifically over-turn edits I have made.

Contaldo80 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless someone would like me to, I don't plan to give a point for point response to all of these allegations. I will simply point anyone interested to the relevant talk pages and edit summaries. There you can see extensive discussions where it is clear that not only am I engaging with others, I am making efforts to cite relevant policies and guidelines for all the actions I am taking. There you can also see that it is far from me against the world. There are others who have agreed with me, as well as those who have disagreed. You will also find that, when a dispute seems intractable, I have sought out other opinions from WP:3O and WP:RFC on multiple occasions.

I would like to specifically address the accusations of incivility, hounding, and threatening. I have no doubt that I have made mistakes along the way, but the difs show that none of this is true.

• With regards to incivility, on the occasion in question I didn't mean to come across as incivil, and apologized if I did.
• There was one occasion when I edited an article I typically don't, and Contaldo himself said he was "sure that it wasn't your aim at all to hound me." He then accepted my explaination when I said I wasn't hounding him by saying "No offence taken." In any case, it was one time, and certainly wasn't repeated.
• Finally, I never, ever threatened to ban him (even if I could). In fact, I said the complete opposite: "You often have substantive contributions, so I don't want to see you get banned." --BrianCUA (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism, including libel

Eric Carmen page is being vandalized repeatedly by an IP and a user name to include libel. Can someone help me stop this? Ip IP edits are 69.54.63.217 and user edits, almost word for word, is Cherrykid6. Both IP and user notified of this incident. P37307 (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I protected the page for a week to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Genre warring again

BadboyOli (talk · contribs) has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources for a few days now and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. I reported to AIV but I can't tract down what happened to it. Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 13:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, you were told in the edit summary that club wasn't sourced ergo it was removed, like I said, please add a source to it and then it can stay… BadboyOli (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ugh... another genre war? As best I can see both of you are slow-motion edit warring, and you need to work this out on the relevant talkpages and/or through dispute resolution. If it continues, to stop it I'll protect any necessary pages at whatever wrong version it's at. (And I'm really considering taking action on a Fergie song and a Mariah Carey song besides trying to condemn them to damnatio memoriae... this place makes one do strange things) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed TBAN for WO1977

As I wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rah Crawford (2nd nomination):

In addition to being deleted once already, this was recreated as a draft, which was declined three times. The author then copy-pasted the text of the draft to mainspace, and arranged for the draft to be deleted by tagging it with template:db-g7. While it's true that WP:AfC is an optional process, asking people to spend their time reviewing your work, then ignoring their input and moving it to mainspace anyway is WP:GAMING the system. Not to mention that the copy-paste and history deletion technically makes this a copyvio. Edit comments (currently deleted) like, Sulfurboy mentioned it was too close to the wording on another site - That bio was submitted at the same time as we submitted to Wikipedia it is by the same writer. Although, I did make many changes to this in order to not look like it was plagiarized. :) make it clear that there's undisclosed WP:COI.

Rather than just indef blocking User:WO1977 as WP:NOTHERE (which I think would be justified), I'd like to try the less draconian measure of a TBAN against editing any topic, broadly construed, related to Rah Crawford. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please throw a spam filter together ...

Special:Contributions/93.182.104.0/21 seems to be having fun posting links [[Kıbrıs Türk Devletı]] and [[639-1 ısoo]] with a few variations. If someone could throw together a spam filter that would be great, I would however, bed beckons. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)